The prosecutor asks the judge to clarify what he is investigating to avoid a general case against Begoña Gómez

The Madrid Prosecutor’s Office also considers “essential and precise” that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado clarify what criminal acts he accuses of Begoña Gómez, wife of the President of the Government, to avoid “any hint of helplessness or the configuration of a general case.”

The prosecutor in the case sees “judicial determination and precision as necessary” to guarantee “the fullness of the right to defense” and has asked the judge to delimit the investigation and “minimally” substantiate the facts he instructs after referring part of the case to the Prosecutor’s Office. European.

He does so in a letter dated June 19 and to which EFE has had access, in which he appeals the ruling in which the judge considered settled the doubts of Begoña Gómez’s defense regarding the scope of the case, and where He asks him to explain what new evidence he has been collecting to avoid the “patent helplessness” of the person under investigation.

And he also challenges, as Begoña Gómez’s lawyer has done, the summons as a witness on July 5 of the rector of the Complutense University of Madrid, Joaquín Goyache.

The prosecutor considers that the rector’s summons, agreed on the same day that Gómez was to be declared under investigation, was adopted “without a minimum of factual specification and lacking any legal focus, not knowing what data it is based on (…), what crime the person being investigated is charged (or if they are the same), or the witness’s relationship with it.”

The Prosecutor’s Office charges against the “indeterminacy and lack of clarity and specificity of the object of the case” because, beyond references to the Complutense University in the complaints and complaints that have reached the court, “there is no judicial resolution that includes”, even “succinctly” what facts are being investigated.

For this reason, he sees it necessary for the judge to previously determine the facts to which the case is based in order to “understand and assess the need and relevance” of the rector’s testimony.

Within the framework of this procedure, Judge Peinado has recently refused to admit the Complutense University of Madrid as a private accusation because he did not see “what damage it may have suffered.”

Like Gómez’s lawyer, the prosecutor understands that the Provincial Court of Madrid limited the facts that the judge must investigate, ruling out two blocks that the Manos Liminas group reported, although he assumes that this does not imply that facts related to the initial ones cannot be investigated. or that could arise.

But to do this, he says, the judge should motivate what new facts he considers criminal or what evidence he has subsequently collected “to investigate facts that in principle the Provincial Court saw as an implausible factual block or with erroneous data” or, in the case of possible relationship between Begoña Gómez and the rescue of Globalia, “as a simple conjecture.”

Furthermore, the prosecutor refers to the fact that the only police report in the case, from the Central Operational Unit (UCO), was requested by the judge “with a little scrupulous indeterminacy and generality” and that it would be necessary to see if it contains facts about the that, according to the Madrid Court, “an investigation should not have been nor could it be opened.”