2024-09-30 11:52:35
The Madrid Provincial Court suspended its deliberations on the case opened against Begoña Gómez and both the President’s wife and the Prosecutor’s Office appealed to archive the case. The judges of the court explain that they need more information regarding the appeal made by Gómez’s defense during the procedure and criticize that the court did not refer to these allegations in its “brief testimony.” The judges, at the moment, have not set a date for a new meeting to decide if they will limit in some way the case that Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has been open for months against Begoña Gómez.
The Prosecutor’s Office asks the Madrid Court to take measures in the “general case” of Judge Peinado against Begoña Gómez
One of the sections in the court in Madrid had set this Monday as the date to study the resources requested by the Prosecutor’s Office and Begoña Gómez herself the case file, criticizing, among other things, the nature of “expectations ” of those events Peinado keeps open for several months at the request of Clean Hands and other popular accusations like Vox or HazteOir.
The discussions have been suspended and do not currently have a date. The court explains that, by examining the proceedings, Gómez found that Gómez appealed directly against one of Peinado’s orders and, however, the court made no “reference” to it in the “brief evidence” sent to the Court Province from Madrid. The court admits that that appeal has “relevance to the discussion” and a decision should be delayed.
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 accusations. That day, the judge’s response was that she was investigating “all the actions, behavior and conduct that have been carried out since her husband was President of the Spanish Government contained in the initial complaint”. Gómez appealed directly to the Court in Madrid regarding this order.
The error in the submission of the documents is more serious if one considers that the judges who had to analyze it issued a resolution on September 12, more than two weeks ago, that the Peinado court would make the “full evidence” of the case , that is, all the documentation it consists of.
The Provincial Court rejected a request by Begoña Gómez’s defense to make its relevant decision before September 30, almost three months after the appeal was presented. However, the timing of justice and the fact that it is not a case involving a prisoner – which requires all decisions to be expedited – meant that the request was ignored.
Sources from the High Court of Justice of Madrid estimate that the delay will be at least one month due to the error in sending documents from the Peinado court to the Provincial Court. In the meantime between the presentation of the appeals and the resolution of the appeals requesting that the case be archived, which was to be analyzed today, the judge took the opportunity to travel to Moncloa and record of the President of the Government taking advantage of his right. not to testify against his wife.
“Procedural flow”
In their appeal, 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 cites in its appeal a “procedural flow” based on resolutions that have a “lack of specificity” and that constantly involve “generalizations”, resulting in a “general case” against the wife of the Presidents.
Gómez’s lawyer, for his part, speaks of a “universal cause”, an investigation into the “life and work” of the president’s wife. He refers to the judge’s warning, in one of his resolutions, that he was going to investigate “all the actions, behavior and behavior that the person under investigation has done since her husband was the President of the Government which includes in the complaint. The lawyer warns: “No one’s actions, behavior and behavior can be investigated in a democratic criminal procedure system.”
#error #Peinado #court #delays #Courts #decision #Begoña #Gómez #case