The Office of the Supreme Court Prosecutor has begun to study the position that the Public Ministry will adopt against the rationale forwarded against the second vice president, Pablo Iglesias, by Judge Manuel García-Castellón, who attributes three crimes to him in relation to what is known as the Dina case. In a meeting held this Thursday by the team of court prosecutors, several defended reporting in favor of opening a case against the leader of Podemos in order to hear a statement from the former advisor and verify before the competent court whether or not it grants your forgiveness as the victim of a revelation of secrets.
The meeting has been limited to an exchange of opinions. Faced with this thesis, other members of the Prosecutor’s Office support a contrary criterion. In line with the opinion that it transmitted through an internal Anti-Corruption note, in front of the piece of the National Court, this second group considers that the reasoned statement should be archived because Dina never reported Iglesias for accessing the private and intimate information that he kept on the microSD card of the mobile phone that was stolen. They thus maintain with respect to the crime of discovery and disclosure of secrets aggravated by gender – the most obvious of the three – that the victim, Bousselham, does not feel harmed despite the fact that Iglesias kept the device without her knowledge for months.
The judge in the case Dina asks the Supreme Court to investigate Pablo Iglesias for three crimes
Beatriz PareraIn May, the magistrate began to investigate whether, after recovering Bousselham’s mobile card, the vice president handled data from his former adviser and destroyed the micro-SD before returning it to him.
The group of prosecutors studying the case includes the four prosecutors from the ‘procés’ – Jaime Moreno, Javier Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal and Fidel Cadena – as well as other prominent members such as Juan Ignacio Campos or Pilar Fernández, who were already consulted in the case of the covid complaints. Chief Prosecutor Luis Navajas. Once they reach a common agreement, they will present a written document. The opinion they formulate does not condition the Supreme Court in any case, on whom the decision ultimately depends.
The letter sent by the head of the Central Court of Instruction 6 on the piece he pointed to three crimes: discovery of secrets —with aggravating gender—, computer damage and false report or simulation of crime. The first of them It is the one that would force, according to the criteria of a sector, to open a case. The piece Dina revolves around the content of the cell phone of the former advisor to Iglesias. The account of facts that the instructor of the National Court considers credited explains how the events were happening.
Dina’s audio about Iglesias before the judge: “There were private photos that he could see”
Beatriz PareraThe magistrate told him in his appearance in May “Doesn’t that seem strange?” and Bousselham replied: “We will have to ask him.”
Everything starts with the disappearance of the mobile in an Ikea. The content of the microSD that housed the phone appeared several months after the theft of the device, in an envelope, in the magazine ‘Interviú’. After the magazine checked its contents and understood that it was related to Iglesias, he was summoned to return it. The leader of Podemos thus recovered the mobile card in January 2016 but instead of giving the consultant his private data, he kept it. “The card was kept in your possession, without telling its owner, even though they were both close people and despite the knowledge he had of the disappearance of Dina’s objects since November 2015, “the judge explains.
According to García-Castellón, this silence can be linked to the fact that Iglesias accessed the microSD card and saw screenshots made by Bousselham herself, who in the National Court acknowledged having sent private conversations to third parties that they did not leave the vice president in a good place. Whatever the reason, the use that Iglesias could make of the card at that time is one of the pillars on which his possible accusation of a crime of revealing secrets rests. For one of the groups of prosecutors, it seems clear that Iglesias viewed private content from a third party without their consent, and that is —in principle— a crime, as the Supreme Court has already determined in numerous sentences.
Returning the ball to judge Castellón or summoning Dina: the Supreme Court’s options with Iglesias
The analysis of the list of facts indicates that the investigation cannot be closed outright without proceedings being carried out, and the most urgent leads to Bousselham
The second of the groups points out, however, that for there to be a secret disclosure crime, Dina Bousselham would have to have reported or pointed out to the vice president from the beginning like the person who stole his cell phone, and that has never happened. Bousselham accuses Commissioner Villarejo of the abduction and, tacitly but not expressly, has exonerated Iglesias of any responsibility.
The Penal Code indicates in its article 130.5 that the forgiveness of the offended, understood as the declaration of his will to put an end to a “punitive intervention by himself excited”, entails the extinction of criminal responsibility. Precise that forgiveness It must be expressly granted before the sentence has been handed down., for which purpose the judge or sentencing court must hear the offended by the crime before issuing it.
Prosecutor’s Office confirms that the Dina case already includes the investigation of Iglesias for a false complaint
“In view of the judicial statement given by the witness Calvente on September 10, the object of this piece must be understood extended to the simulation of crime and false report”
In addition to the disclosure of secrets, the judge of the National Court who sent the rationale attributed to Iglesias a crime of computer damage and indicates that returned the inoperative card to Bousselham. Although it has not been possible to determine the date of the return, it indicates that it must have been before August 23, 2017: he had checked its content in ‘Interviú’ in January 2016, but when he gave it to his former advisor months later , the microSD no longer worked. “The only possible explanation, based on the evidence collected, to understand the inoperability of the card, is that the damage was caused while it was in the hands of Iglesias, since the micro card was working at the time that Mr. Asensio gave it to him. delivers, and no longer does when Iglesias returns it to him, “says Castellón.
The third of the crimes attributed by the instructor is the false report or simulation of crime. It indicates that Iglesias acted in a “false” way and that in a “conscious and planned way (…), he pretended to public opinion and to his electorate that he had been the victim of an act that he knew did not exist.”