The appeal of Pablo Iglesias against the acquittal of two men who linked him to drug trafficking is dismissed

The Court of Madrid confirms the sentence by which the defendants were acquitted of the crime of slander and insults

MADRID, 27 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Provincial Court of Madrid has dismissed the appeal filed by the former vice president of the Government and former leader of Podemos, Pablo Iglesias, against the acquittal of two men whom he had accused of an alleged crime of slander and insults as a result of interviews they gave in the that linked him to Venezuelan drug trafficking and alleged Iranian financing.

In the sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, the magistrates of the First Section have dismissed the appeal of Iglesias and that of the Prosecutor's Office after assuring that they have "serious doubts" that the expressions made by the defendants have "sufficient strength and consistency to understand that they are of such seriousness that they have affected the honor of Mr. Pablo Iglesias to the point that he deserves criminal protection".

In 20 pages, the Madrid Court has explained that it has confirmed the court ruling that was handed down last May "not only because of the circumstantial nature of the event, but also because of the convulsive climate that currently exists in the political debate, in which any kind of of disqualifications carried out are annulled or forgotten by the following ones, without leaving any sequel to the honor of the participants in that debate".

For the magistrates, it is not clear that the statements of the accused have had a "negative influence and repercussion" on "the personal, social and family spectrum" of the former leader of Podemos.

In addition, the Madrid Court has ensured that Iglesias has not been able to demonstrate that the assessment included in the trial judgment is "irrational or exaggerated" or that it is "outside the required parameters to support an acquittal".

In the resolution, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, the magistrates have established that the comments made about Iglesias are not clear and specific accusations, so they do not see the possibility that the leader's honor has been violated.

Thus, they have coincided with the conclusion reached in the first instance judgment that the expressions expressed by the defendants "lack sufficient precision as an instrument of an accusation of facts comparable to slander, either because they are built on a rumour, not about a statement, or because it was unspecific".

In this sense, the Court has specified that linking someone to drug trafficking "is not enough for criminal purposes, but rather requires additional development", nor is it to say of someone who is "in the pay" of an organization or State, "since this term has a metaphorical charge in the context used".

For this reason, the magistrates have stressed that "in order to be able to convict for the crime of slander, it is essential to describe a moderately detailed conduct that allows discerning the essential elements of the criminal offense with the words socially used."

In line, they have explained that when such a requirement is not met, that quality is "lost" to "become a crude insinuation unable to meet the typical requirement of the CP article" that frames and punishes this crime.