Begoña Gómez appeals Sánchez’s summons and claims that the judge uses two articles of the Law that "they do not exist"

Begoña Gómez’s defence has appealed the summons of the President of the Government as a witness in the case against his wife for influence peddling and corruption in business. Gómez’s lawyer believes that there is not a single indication that justifies the summons of the head of the Executive and adds in his writing that two of the three articles of the Criminal Procedure Law that the judge cites in his summons order “do not exist”.

“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 purported 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,” says the document, which elDiario.es has had access to.

Gómez’s defence once again reiterates the limits imposed by the Provincial Court and the investigation by the European Prosecutor’s Office on Judge Juan Carlos Peinado and which, according to this party, the magistrate repeatedly ignores. Therefore, if by decision of the higher court there are no facts to investigate, the summons of the head of the Executive is meaningless, it argues.

The appeal filed by lawyer Antonio Camacho focuses on what he considers to be contradictions by the magistrate, who states in his ruling that he summons Pedro Sánchez to clarify “the possible relationship with an authority” that the suspect, Begoña Gómez, maintains. “It is public, notorious and perfectly known that both have been in a marital relationship for many years,” the defense responds in its written statement.

There is no room for questioning in Moncloa

The taking of a statement in the official office of an authority is provided for in the Law when investigating facts outside his or her position, Camacho recalls. In this regard, Gómez’s lawyer recalls that it was the judge himself who warned that he would investigate “all acts, conduct and behavior” carried out by the person under investigation since Sánchez became President of the Government. And he adds that it is because of the “influence” that Gómez could have exercised on the president to make certain decisions, something that he can only do in the exercise of his position as president. Therefore, Camacho adds, the Law provides that the president or any other member of the Government can respond in writing to the questions of the investigator.

The only clue that the magistrate could rely on is the statement of Juan Carlos Barrabés as a witness, in which he claimed to have seen Sánchez twice in Moncloa. One of them was as part of a round with businessmen from the innovation sector – Barrabés recalled that he is a member of the board of directors of an Ibex company – and the other, briefly because he was called on his mobile phone, during a meeting he had with Gómez. In this regard, the lawyer of the person under investigation recalls that the Palacio de La Moncloa is the residence of his client and that it was difficult for Barrabés not to see his partner there at least once, as happened.

“There is not the slightest indication that justifies the summons made beyond the free will of the investigating judge (…). But we must reiterate, in legal terms, that the adoption of investigative measures always requires a basis, which in this case we understand does not exist at all and proof that it does not exist is that it has not been externalized in the order issued,” the document concludes.