The investigations into the alleged irregularities that flew over the Cursach case do not seem to see the end. After numerous overturns and after the president of the Superior Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands (TSJIB) and instructor of the case, Carlos Gómez, shelved for the second time the most serious accusations that weighed about the judge and the prosecutor who for three years investigated the night magnate Bartolomé Cursach, the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office insists that both should go to the bench for, allegedly, coercing witnesses, making illegal arrests and deliberately prolonging the imprisonment of several investigated.
The president of the Superior Court of the Balearic Islands concludes that the judge and the prosecutor who investigated Cursach did not manipulate witnesses
Through a 52-page resource to which elDiario.es has had access, Madrid prosecutors Tomás Herranz and Fernando Bermejo, extremely active in these investigations, request the revocation of the order with which, on April 19, Gómez put an end to The investigation of the investigation and left Judge Manuel Penalva – as well as four members of the Laundering police group with whom he worked in front of the Cursach case – at the gates of the trial for the less serious crimes: having leaked secret information to the press and not having deployed any conduct to prevent it.
This is the second time that the instructor has closed the case after it was closed in December. After the avalanche of appeals filed for some thirty accusations, the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the TSJIB ordered its reopening to delve into the clarification of the alleged pressures that the former investigators of the Cursach case exerted on various witnesses. Convinced that such allegations never occurred, the magistrate returned ten days ago to close the case with the news that, on this occasion, he decided to exonerate the former prosecutor Subirán after a forensic report determined that he is not in a position to defend himself with sufficient guarantees due to medical incapacity. A conclusion that the prosecutors, in their appeal, sharply contest.
In this regard, Anticorrupción recalls that, already in February 2020, Subirán -who has been present in practically all the causes of political corruption instructed and tried in the Balearic Islands in the last decade- was interrogated for the alleged irregularities committed in front of the Cursach case without that “neither by the person under investigation nor by his defense was it alleged that he suffered from any type of mental derangement.” Moreover, he asserts that the prosecutors themselves, during the appearance, did not appreciate any indication that suggested some type of disability and how, in fact, the former prosecutor “clearly answered how many questions were asked in accordance with the content of the question” . “Finally, the investigating magistrate should not have noticed anything exceptional either,” the Public Ministry abounds, arguing that Gómez did not make use of the article of the Criminal Procedure Law that contemplates the immediate observation of the declarant in case of noticing any type of disturbance.
In such circumstances, the prosecution indicates that there is no supposition of supervening incapacity with which the magistrate justifies the provisional file of the case for the former prosecutor Subirán. Furthermore, it adds that a medical report issued by a specialist in forensic psychiatry is necessary to determine whether Subirán “has, or had at the time of the events that are the subject of this proceeding, altered his mental faculties.”
Regarding the investigations, and as they already did last December, when the president of the TSJIB concluded the investigations into what happened after the Cursach case, Herranz and Bermejo appealed harshly against the proceedings of the investigating magistrate, who they accuse of “exceeding” their functions when ruling out facts that, according to prosecutors, should be examined in court and on which, abound, there are solid evidence of criminality. Those of “greater gravity”, affect, those related to the presumably illicit imprisonment of several of the defendants.
And this, they assert, “regardless of whether it is also necessary to postpone investigation procedures in order to justify the existence of legal reasons for agreeing to the prison as well as to maintain a detention after not acceding to the purposes of those investigated, to pressure [a un detenido] so that it declared in a certain sense and the deliberate delay in the practice of proceedings to increase the period of deprivation of liberty of the foregoing “.
“Spain is a State of Law not only because the Constitution says so (Article 1.1), but because there is a normative corpus that develops it and a set of institutions that are in charge of its compliance,” the Public Prosecutor immediately proclaims, emphasizing that “since freedom is one of the most important fundamental rights (art. 17 CE), respect for it must guide the conduct of those who can legally limit it”, both researchers emphatically proclaim.
And, far from limiting their reflection to the scope of the Magna Carta, they review the jurisprudence and the precepts that different laws deploy around the proportionality with which they establish that an arrest or entry into prison must be carried out, such as the sentence that condemned the former spokesperson of the General Council of the Judiciary Luis Pascual Estevill for agreeing to several illegal imprisonments when, according to that resolution, “it was evidently enough to cite them all as defendants.”
In their appeal, Herranz and Bermejo also question the role played by the protected witnesses who testified in the Cursach case and who, according to various reports provided by the National Police, declared briefed by Penalva and Subirán. In fact, they maintain that “the decision to guide the testimony” was not “an isolated event, but a way of working.” Finally, they point out that the former investigators of the case would have altered various statements such as in the case of one of the key witnesses in the Cursach case, the then witness 31, who claimed to be the madam in a brothel attended by high political officials of the PP to participate in parties sponsored by the Mallorcan magnate.
Faced with such accusations, the magistrate rejects that the former investigators of the Cursach case guided the witnesses so that they testified against the businessman of the night and the numerous local policemen of Palma who, according to their thesis, would have guaranteed their protection in exchange. of alcohol, drugs and sex. In the same way, it rules out that they prolonged incarcerations and intentionally delayed the practice of various witness statements. Both Penalva and Subirán cling to their innocence and defend the work they carried out to lift the carpets of the alleged mafia network that, according to their thesis, the businessman Cursach would have deployed with the aim of keeping his empire afloat.
Now, the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the highest judicial instance of the Balearic Islands must again rule on the path that the case should follow. While it is elucidated which facts should finally go to trial, the tycoon and 23 other defendants, among whom are the local commanders and policemen supposedly honored in exchange for sponsoring the smooth running of the Cursach group’s businesses and punishing their competition, will They are pending trial for multiple crimes totaling more than one hundred years in prison. The defendants, for their part, appeal for the annulment of the case based on the investigation of those who put the spotlight on them.