The vice president of Social Rights, Pablo Iglesias, has appealed the order in which Judge Manuel García-Castellón agrees to request the Supreme Court to open a criminal case against him for allegedly “pretending” in the Dina case for electoral purposes. In the letter, to which elDiario.es has had access, it requests the annulment of that resolution considering that the reasoned statement sent to the high court ignores the position that the Criminal Chamber of the National Court maintained in relation to that investigation, that he corrected the magistrate and restored him to the status of injured party in the open case as a result of the theft of his former collaborator’s mobile phone and the appearance of material about it in various media.
Furthermore, it recalls that the Criminal Chamber warned that there are no more indications than those that point to Commissioner José Villarejo as the author of the dissemination of the stolen information and that “there is no evidence” to support the “alternative hypotheses” of the instructor, who in some of his resolutions pointed to the possibility that there were other sources of publication of the mobile content, including Iglesias and Bousselham. In fact, Iglesias requests that this line of investigation be deepened and, specifically, in the connection with the Deputy Operational Directorate of the Police to which the former commissioner testified that he had delivered the material of the telephone card.
Much of the argumentation of the brief presented by the legal representation of Iglesias is based on the decision of the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, which amended Judge García-Castellón in his appointment to the vice president. “Not only does the Chamber indicate that there is no evidence of the facts that the Investigating Magistrate maintains, but it is reminded that the object of the investigation in the National Court must be the investigation of crimes committed by the criminal organization that is being investigated “says the appeal in reference to the Villarejo case, from which Dina’s piece is derived.
“The Central Court of Instruction number 6 has jurisdiction in this case because the files coinciding with those of the mobile phone stolen from Doña Dina have been found in the possession of Mr. Villarejo, and that despite the fact that the investigated himself declared that he had allegedly sent them to the Directorate Deputy Police Operations, the court has never investigated such an extreme, “says the letter.
Iglesias’ thesis is that the publication in some media – including OkDiario – of screenshots of conversations taken from the cell phone of the former Podemos advisor comes from Villarejo, since the police seized a copy of the card’s content in the registry in which he found hundreds of recordings and dossiers accumulated in 40 terabytes.
“It is the scientific police who indicate that the material seized in the home of the investigated Mr. Villarejo coincides with the publications that OKDIARIO is making,” says Iglesias’ appeal, which refers to the police investigation as follows: “In the notes that are provided with the report, proving the ex-commissioner’s long relationship with various journalists, there are dates that coincide with different publications in which materials that coincide with the intervened material originating from the stolen mobile are reproduced. ”
The appeal also refers to legal issues such as the consideration that this case, following the criterion of the instructor, should not have been instructed by the National Court but, in any case, an ordinary court since the hypothesis that he now maintains has nothing to do with it. the magistrate with the criminal organization he is investigating. He also recalls that for Iglesias to be investigated for some crimes for which García-Castellón wants him to be charged, he would have to have been pointed out by Dina Bousselham herself, who has declared that she is a victim, like him.
Another of Iglesias’s arguments is that García-Castellón’s decision is based on the testimony of Podemos’s former lawyer José Manuel Calvente. “The absence of any indicative element or the contradictions evidenced in the investigation cannot be ignored by the mere statements of a witness with manifest enmity towards those who are now obviating their status as victims or injured parties, with pending claims for hundreds of thousands of euros against the organization of which the persons with respect to whom the rationale is raised are part, with conflicts with almost all the persons indicated in the aforementioned rationale, including with respect to some of them with pending criminal proceedings. “
With this appeal, Iglesias defends himself against the possibility that the Supreme Court will accept García-Castellón’s request to initiate an investigation – given that it is measured and would correspond to the high court – for three alleged crimes: discovery and revelation of secrets, with gender aggravating; computer damage; and false accusation or report and / or simulation crime in relation to the theft of the mobile of his ex-adviser.
The Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office has reported against this accusation. With that position on the table, the Supreme Court prosecutor, Luis Navajas, will adopt a decision on Iglesias and the rest of those indicated by García-Castellón (Dina Bousselham, Ricardo Sa Ferreira, Gloria Elizo, Raúl Carballedo and Marta Flor) prior consult with a group of courtroom prosecutors. With its report, the Admissions Chamber, made up of five magistrates, will decide whether to accept García-Castellón’s rationale and summon them to testify as investigated or to archive the case.