The Provincial Court of Madrid has suspended its deliberations on the case opened against Begoña Gómez and the appeals of both the President’s wife and the Prosecutor’s Office to archive the case. The court judges explain that they need more information about an appeal presented by Gómez’s defense throughout the procedure and criticize that the court did not make reference to these allegations in its “brief testimony.” The judges, for the moment, have not set a date for a new meeting to decide whether to delimit in any way the case that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has kept open for months against Begoña Gómez.
One of the sections of the Madrid court had set this Monday as the date to study the resources with which the Prosecutor’s Office and Begoña Gómez herself requested the file of the case, criticizing, among other things, the “prospective” nature of the proceedings that Peinado keeps open. for several months at the request of Clean Hands and other popular accusations such as Vox or HazteOir.
The deliberations have been suspended and currently have no date. The court explains that by examining the proceedings it has discovered that Gómez filed a direct appeal against one of Peinado’s orders and that, however, the court made no “reference” to it in the “brief testimony” sent to the Provincial Court from Madrid. That appeal, the court admits, has “relevance for the deliberation” and should delay a decision.
On the first day of July, Judge Peinado issued an order in which he responded to Begoña Gómez’s multiple requests for information about the exact reason for her accusation. That day, the judge’s response was that she was being investigated for “all the acts, conduct and behaviors that have been carried out since her husband is the President of the Government of Spain that are contained in the initial complaint.” Gómez appealed this order directly before the Madrid Court.
The error in the submission of the documentation is even more serious if one considers that the judges who had to analyze it issued a resolution on September 12, more than two weeks ago, for the Peinado court to send the “entire testimony.” ” of the case, that is, all the documentation that comprises it.
The Provincial Court had rejected a request from Begoña Gómez’s defense for its relevant decision to be made before September 30, almost three months after the presentation of the appeal. However, the timing of justice and the fact that it is not a case involving a prisoner – which requires all decisions to be accelerated – meant that the request was not attended to.
Sources from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid estimate that the delay caused by the error in sending documentation from the Peinado court to the Provincial Court will be at least one month. In the interim between the presentation of the appeals and the resolution of the appeals asking to archive the case, which were going to be analyzed today, the judge took the opportunity to travel to Moncloa and record the President of the Government taking advantage of his right not to testify against his wife. .
“Procedural drift”
In their appeals, the Prosecutor’s Office and Gómez’s defense list a long list of the judge’s decisions that they consider unfounded or directly contrary to the law. The Prosecutor’s Office alludes in its appeal to a “procedural drift” based on resolutions that suffer from a “lack of specificity” and that continually involve “generalities”, giving rise to “a general case” against the president’s wife.
Gómez’s lawyer speaks, for his part, of a “universal cause”, an investigation into “the life and work” of the president’s wife. It refers to the judge’s warning, in one of his resolutions, that he was going to investigate “all the acts, conduct, behaviors that have been carried out by the person under investigation since her husband was President of the Government that are contained in the complaint. initial”. The lawyer warns: “There is no room for an investigation of all the acts, conduct and behavior of anyone in a democratic criminal procedural system.”
Add Comment