December 1, 2020

The Prosecutor’s Office will ask to return the case on Pablo Iglesias to the National Court so that it can carry out new procedures

The Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office will not yet rule on whether or not Pablo Iglesias should be charged for the Dina case. The team of prosecutors who have analyzed the rationale in which Judge Manuel García Castellón requested the opening of a criminal case against the second vice president of the Government consider that this report is not complete. Consequently, they will request the Criminal Chamber of the High Court to return it to the National Court so that the instructor can carry out new proceedings, reports The Spanish.

Anticorruption informs the Supreme Prosecutor's Office against imputing Pablo Iglesias

Anticorruption informs the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office against imputing Pablo Iglesias

Know more

Only then will the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office rule on whether there are sufficient indications to act criminally against Iglesias, to whom Judge García Castellón incidentally attributes three crimes: discovery and disclosure of secrets, aggravated by gender; computer damage; and false accusation or report and / or simulation crime in relation to the theft of the mobile of his former adviser Dina Bouselham. The former collaborator, alleged victim, does not accuse Iglesias of any crime and exempts him from responsibility in everything related to the card.

The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office recently sent an internal note to the Supreme Court prosecutor, Luis Navajas, with his position contrary to the accusation of Iglesias and the rest of those indicated in the aforementioned rationale. Anticorruption appreciated evidence of the crime of disclosure of secrets and / or computer damage in Iglesias’ attitude but warned the judge in May that it was not possible to impute the leader of Podemos if the injured party, Dina Bousselham, did not take action against him, an extreme that It has not occurred and against which the aforementioned itself was positioned in a letter sent to the Central Court of Instruction number 6.

Anti-corruption asked the judge to cite Bousselham as a witness to clarify his position in court but García-Castellón repeatedly refused. In his rationale, the instructor in the Villarejo case proposed that it be the Supreme Court who did it once he charged Pablo Iglesias. The Supreme Court’s prosecutors also understand that it must be García Castellón who must listen to Bousselham.


Source link