The 'Astapa' prosecutor defends the evidence, denies Villarejo's conspiracy and urges his participation to be seen in the trial

He says he has no doubts about the legality of the evidence or about the complainants

MÁLAGA, 16 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The representative of the Prosecutor's Office in the 'Astapa' case, on the alleged political and urban corruption in Estepona (Málaga), has defended the investigation and has assured that "the prosecutor has no doubts about the legality of the evidence". He has rejected the conspiracy theory that former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo orchestrated this operation, although he has urged his participation to be seen in the trial. "I am not afraid of discovering the truth and if I have been wrong I will act accordingly," he pointed out.

"The trial is necessary and must be held," said the prosecutor Valentín Bueno in his response to the allegations raised by the defenses last week, for which he has rejected the suspension to carry out complementary evidence and also the nullity raised, because there was " strong assumptions" to justify wiretaps, which meet the necessary requirements. In addition, he has defended the complaint and the complainants.

The investigation in this case began as a result of a complaint filed by two councilors, David Valadez --who later became mayor-- and Cristina Rodríguez--, both from the PSOE, a formation that then governed the town together with the PES. There are 50 defendants - although for some the statute of limitations has been estimated and another has reached an agreement in principle - and crimes of bribery, money laundering, embezzlement, fraud and prevarication have been investigated.

Regarding Villarejo, the prosecution says that there are facts that it does not dispute, such as that when the investigation began "his professional prestige was intact", that he had links to Estepona and investments there and contacts with the new mayor --Valadez-- and the manager of Town planning; but he says that he does not know if others occurred or not, such as whether he intervened in the filing of the complaint in Madrid or why Valadez appointed that manager, a person supposedly related to the ex-commissioner.

On the other hand, for the public ministry, the theory that 'Astapa' "was a political operation ordered from the Interior, that there were secret meetings and illegal punctures or that police reports were manipulated" is "unfounded"; and, faced with that, he has presented an "alternative" thesis, which in his opinion should be "ventilated in this trial."

In this regard, he explained that his theory is based in the first place on the fact that the facts of the complaint "are true and would have existed with or without Villarejo", that he "took advantage of his position to keep abreast of the investigation, but never controlled it ", in addition to the fact that "he took advantage of the situation to favor his real estate interests in Estepona and provide activity to one of his companies."

"What I am saying is that it is easy to fish in a troubled river", the representative of the Prosecutor's Office has had an impact, who has said that he is "acknowledging that there were irregularities, but never that there was a bankruptcy of the Rule of Law; what happened here could happen in any Western country because corruption is latent everywhere. In this case the rule of law was the 'Tandem' operation."

Thus, he has ensured that the pending issues "can be found out in the trial without the need to suspend it and provide additional information." For this reason, he has reiterated his request for a new block to address these issues related to the origin of the cause. "It is an evidentiary block, it is not to make evidence on the evidence, but on the origin of the evidence", she has had an impact, pointing out that "it is more necessary for the defenses than for the prosecutor".

Valentín Bueno has defended the "honesty" of the complainants and the validity of the claims in the complaint. In this sense, he recalled that the complainants pointed out that "the already known model of Marbella was followed, where all the agreements were negotiated in a certain office", pointing out that the 'Malaya' case "was something that worried the rulers of the Sunshine Coast".

Thus, it has indicated that they raised a series of "irregularities", which "could not be false", and that summarized in ten points, among them, the existence of a box B "that is nourished by contributions from businessmen", which presumably is eluded control and that the negotiation of agreements was done "not only from Urban Planning but also from the Mayor's Office."

They also referred to the existence of a "Box C, which is nourished by funds that enter without control"; to the hiring of one of the defendants who "monopolized the appraisals of use despite the fact that there were more qualified officials for it", the suspicions about underestimation of at least ten agreements, "with a million-dollar patrimonial damage"; and the "notable enrichment of certain politicians."

For this reason, he has insisted on the "objectivity of the evidence" provided in the complaint, which, subsequently, had three layers of corroboration, such as the public condition of the complainants and that "no one had anything to gain and much to lose"; the verification made by the Police, which identified the interveners and the facts; and the documentation that was intervened.

Likewise, he has defended judicial control, rejecting the idea of ​​the defenses that the investigation was submitted to police guidelines, highlighting the professionalism of those who carried out this investigation. In addition, he has requested that the mitigation of undue delays be applied.

The prosecutor has considered the statute of limitations for the crime of bribery in three defendants, who nevertheless will continue in the case because they are accused of other crimes.