The Supreme Court has confirmed its decision not to allow for processing the complaint filed by Podemos against National Court judge Manuel García-Castellón and his assisting judge Joaquín Gadea for reopening an investigation against the party for alleged illegal financing. The criminal court rejected Podemos' appeal last December, but the party filed an appeal, which has now also been dismissed by the court. In an order presented by elDiario.es, to which EL PAÍS had access, the Supreme Court concludes that some of the procedures initiated by García-Castellón “exceeded the “subjective, objective and temporal” scope of the investigation,” points out this However, back they constituted a crime of subterfuge.
Podemos, which accused the judges of subterfuge, revealing secrets and neglecting the duty to prosecute, complained that García-Castellón agreed in October 2021 to reopen the investigation – which had been archived in 2016 – after hearing a statement from a former Venezuelans had been received by military man Hugo Armando Carvajal, who intended to delay his extradition to the United States. The Criminal Chamber of the National Court filed a complaint against Podemos again in March 2022, considering it “probable,” and a year and a half later last November, the party filed a complaint against García-Castellón and Gadea, citing the lack of new evidence , which justified a retrial and that Pollo Carvajal's testimony lacked a minimum level of “truthfulness”.
In the decision by which the Supreme Court rejected the complaint for the first time, the court already pointed out that the judges had exceeded the scope of the investigation, but considered that the information provided by Carvajal was related to the subject of the investigation. Investigations against Podemos Therefore, given this new information, García-Castellón was obliged to investigate and verify this data. In the decision making the appeal inadmissible, for which Judge Carmen Lamela was rapporteur, the court states that it does not question “the veracity of the story” of Podemos, but does not agree that the facts “such as” The offenses mentioned in the complaint have criminal relevance.
“A mere illegality, a mere contradiction to the law or applicable jurisprudence is not enough to commit the crime of subterfuge.” “The annulment of a decision does not in itself mean that it is invalid in view of the nature of the action the crime charged is unjust,” the Chamber states, pointing out that the crime of subterfuge “requires a little more yes.” . “This departure from the judicial function is requested, which is neither apparent from the statement of claim nor, as we have shown in the contested order, noted in view of the decisions adopted by the defendants.” Discrepancies in this regard, including their hypothetical illegality, “must, as was usual at the time, be combated in the legally established manner, but not by initiating criminal proceedings against the trainers…” the court concluded.
What influences the most is what happens next. To make sure you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to