The National Court once again corrects García Castellón and forces him to take a statement from Dina Bousselham



The Criminal Chamber of the National Court has fully upheld the appeal of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office against the order of the judge in the case Dina, Manuel García Castellón, against the closure of the instruction decreed by him. The judges of the Third Section force the magistrate to take a statement from Dina Bousselham, the victim of the theft of her mobile whose information about Podemos appeared in the possession of Commissioner Villarejo and published in various media. García Castellón will also have to question the former Deputy Director of Police Operations, Eugenio Pino, and Bousselham’s ex-partner.

The judges of the Criminal Chamber have already forced García Castellón to return the condition of injured to Pablo Iglesias for the dissemination of the information contained in Bousselham’s phone. Despite this, García Castellón insisted on the line of investigation that pointed to the then leader of Podemos, and not the one that pointed to Villarejo, and proposed to the Supreme Court to impute the politician. The High Court rejected García Castellón’s claim ten months ago and told him that he should ask Bousselham if he felt harmed by Iglesias’ performance. The investigating judge García Castellón continues without calling the former collaborator of Iglesias.

The Third Section of the Criminal Chamber has resolved in five cases the appeals presented by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Pablo Iglesias, Dina Bouselham, the retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo and the Interviú journalists Alberto Pozas and Luis Rendueles against the order of the instructor Manuel García Castellón in which he proposed to try the last three and sent a reasoned statement to the Supreme Court in relation to the actions of several graduates, including the former leader of Podemos.

In the order in which it fully upholds the appeal of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, the Chamber understands that the proceedings requested by the Public Ministry are “proceeding for the purposes of the investigation.” The judges of the Chamber explain that throughout the investigation, the injured Dina Bouselham has testified several times about the screenshots of her phone published by Okdiario that, in some cases, had also been disclosed by her. The judge’s thesis is that anyone could have made this information reach the media, not just Villarejo. However, the Chamber assures that there is other information that was disclosed that is not what it has been shown that Bousselham was able to disseminate and that his statement may contribute to the clarification.

In relation to the statement of his partner, Ricardo Sa Ferreira, the Court understands that his statement may serve to explain some gaps in the information that he provided on the theft of the telephone and recovery of the card.

Likewise, the Chamber considers it necessary for the Court that Eugenio Pino be heard as a witness with the guarantees requested by the Prosecutor’s Office (as it is being investigated in another piece) to clarify the consistency of the statements made by the investigated Alberto Pozas and Luis Rendueles about that the information they provided to Villarejo was in the belief that it was in the framework of a police investigation, the latter having declared that he shared said information within his police activity in information services.

In relation to the appeals of Pablo Iglesias and Dina Bouselham, the Chamber also considers it in the sense of taking a statement from Eugenio Pino, although it rejects other testimony requested by both. The magistrates of the Hearing also rule out ruling on the rationale sent by the Sixth Central Court of Instruction to the Supreme Court as it is not within its competence.

In another of the proceedings, the Chamber rejects the joint appeal of the journalists of the extinct magazine Interviú against the order of the investigator who considered that they should be tried for the crime of revealing secrets. The Court understands that, contrary to what was argued by both, the judge’s order describes the events that occurred with Bouselham’s memory card and the delivery of its contents to a third party, an action classified as a crime of discovery and disclosure of secrets.

Finally, the Court dismisses Villarejo’s appeal in which he requested the reopening of the procedure to incorporate the chats contributed by José Manuel Calvente included in a case processed in the Madrid court. “The incorporation to the procedure of the chats will serve in its case to assess the credibility or plausibility of what was declared by the witness that is typical of the oral trial phase and may be interested as evidence to be practiced in it”, conclude the judges.

.



Source link