Judge Juan Carlos Peinado will appear at the Moncloa Palace on Tuesday to take a statement from the President of the Government in an unprecedented event that, at the same time, has no content for the case. Peinado has used the “subterfuge” – according to the term chosen by the Prosecutor’s Office – of summoning Sánchez as “husband” and not as President of the Government, which would prevent him from exercising his right to respond in writing. And he has done so knowing that the Law also protects the President, and any citizen, in another aspect of the statement: no one is obliged to testify in a case against their spouse.
With these elements, Peinado’s visit to the Moncloa Palace seems inconsequential for the case, but of enormous political utility for the opposition. No statement before a judge that arouses the slightest media interest has ever managed not to be reproduced by the media, in audio or video. In a quicker way, if the case is not secret, as is the case. Or in a more extended way in time, if it occurs under summary secrecy and it is necessary to wait for it to be lifted. Peinado has given specific instructions for Sánchez to be photographed throughout the duration of his appearance before him. The publication of the image of the president before the judge, even as a witness, is only a matter of time from the moment it occurs.
Peinado will be accompanied by a judicial commission and will transfer to the residence of the head of the Executive the procedure for any other statement taking in his court. The parties involved in the case will also be present, that is, the lawyers of the three investigated, the prosecutor and the popular action, represented by the lawyer of the opposition party Vox, which leads the rest of the far-right organisations after Manos Limpias gave it that representation.
The appeals filed by Begoña Gómez’s defence and the Public Prosecutor’s Office up until yesterday have been of no use. The haste with which the judge has summoned Sánchez has prevented the higher court, the Provincial Court of Madrid, from having time to make a decision. In its latest attempt, which the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself recognised had little chance, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has lodged its complaint about this.
These are the powers that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has used to record the President of the Government testifying in Moncloa.
Quote the husband, not the president
The way Peinado’s decisions and orders are worded, poorly punctuated, with very long sentences, most of them subordinate, makes it extremely difficult to understand what the judge really means. In the summons to the President of the Government, Peinado states that he will check “the possible relationship of the person under investigation with an authority” and then adds: “it is considered convenient, useful and pertinent to receive a statement from the husband of the person under investigation.”
Ceremony of confusion aside, the summons to Sánchez as a “husband” is intended to prevent the President of the Government from exercising his right to answer the judge’s questions in writing. Article 412.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act states that “the most relevant authorities of the State, including the President and members of his Government, are exempt from appearing when summoned by the Judge, but not from testifying, and may report in writing on the facts of which they are aware by reason of their position.”
The key is that the facts she is being questioned about are related to the exercise of her office. Could Begoña Gómez have allegedly engaged in influence peddling if Sánchez were not the President of the Government?
An “urgent” summons
Peinado made the decision to summon Pedro Sánchez on the same day that his wife, Begoña Gómez, invoked her right not to testify as a suspect. It was July 19 and the judge set the president’s statement for this Tuesday, July 30, with 11 days’ notice.
The prosecution and the defence consider that there is no case after the Provincial Court established that the facts of the investigation were contracts that are already being investigated by the European Prosecutor’s Office, to the detriment of the judge. But if Peinado insists, what is the urgency? There is another witness summoned for 26 August.
The consequence of Peinado having allowed only eleven days to pass between his summons and the taking of his statement has been that any appeal against it before the Provincial Court has not been able to be resolved in time. On the same day that Sánchez was summoned, Section 23, which is in charge of reviewing Peinado’s decisions, set the 30th of September for the deliberation and ruling on other appeals by the Prosecutor’s Office and the defence presented before the one that refutes the summons of the president, specifically, on the 7th and 8th of July. Consequently, the Provincial Court will review whether there were arguments to take the statement of the President of the Government next Tuesday, at the earliest, in October.
A statement for what?
The prosecution and the defence have expressed in their briefs the need to close the case as soon as possible after three months and two reports from the Civil Guard have ruled out the evidence supporting their investigation. But the fact that the investigation requires a statement from the President of the Government has prompted some of the harshest paragraphs from their representatives.
The prosecutor of the Economic Crimes Section of the Madrid Prosecutor’s Office is perplexed by the judge’s intention that Sánchez, the husband of the suspect, should dedicate his answers to explaining to the investigating judge why Begoña Gómez would be guilty. “What is expected of the witness called about the activity attributed to his wife? – he writes – That he be the first person of those called to affirm this influence and prevalence? That he knew her or that he participated? That he collaborated? That he encouraged the activity? Because the brevity of the resolution issued (that is another issue) does not allow us to know certain details of it.”
Article 416.1 of the Criminal Procedure Act exempts direct relatives of those under investigation, including spouses, from testifying in cases. This Tuesday, as almost every week, the meeting of the Council of Ministers chaired by Sánchez is scheduled. It usually starts early in the morning and Peinado has scheduled the president’s statement at 11 a.m. The president can use the appearance to remind the judge that he does not have to testify in a case against his wife.
The invented articles
When recalling the first statement by a Prime Minister as a witness at the Moncloa Palace, it will be necessary to remember that this was produced with a five-paragraph ruling – an unreasoned decision – two of which were dedicated to guaranteeing that it was recorded correctly and that in the three paragraphs of alleged legal content the judge invented two articles that do not exist.
This is how Antonio Camacho, Gómez’s defence lawyer, reacted: “It is obvious, from a strictly legal point of view, that a resolution that cites three articles, two of which do not exist in our Criminal Procedure Code, can only be described as surprising. Given that in the Criminal Procedure Code there is neither point 2.12 of Article 412, nor a supposed Art 413 paragraph 12. In short, the qualification of surprising that this lawyer has used at the beginning of this section is more than justified.”
Add Comment