Villarejo complains to the National Court that the 'Tándem' instructor "steals" him access to decisions he makes

He wants to be able to see police reports regarding the piece that investigates whether he offered sensitive information to third parties from the Estremera prison

MADRID, 12 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The defense of the retired commissioner José Manuel Villarejo, who is being investigated for his private business while he was active, has complained before the National Court that the instructor of the so-called 'Tandem' case would have arranged not to notify transcendent resolutions, something that, he assures, has caused him defenselessness in the process.

For this reason, in a complaint appeal to which Europa Press has had access, Villarejo's lawyer asks the Criminal Chamber to order the instructor to ""notify (...) all the judicial decisions issued that have not yet been been notified" and that also gives you access to all the police reports that have been received in court and to which the parties have not been given access up to now.

Specifically, the lawyer Antonio José García Cabrera, from Lemat Abogados, refers in the complaint to an order of November 2 by which the instructor, Manuel García-Castellón, dismissed an appeal filed by this defense against a July decree regarding to piece 28, which in turn rejected a previous writing.

It should be remembered that this piece was opened to clarify whether the commissioner offered to different people and through third parties the information he had in his possession while he was in provisional detention in the Estremera prison in Madrid.

The lawyer indicates in the brief that in November the judge did not admit to processing his appeal -which he submits to a higher instance to decide on a judicial decision- against an order of that same month by which García-Castellón rejected a review of a July resolution. "It causes this party an obvious defenselessness not being able to submit that transcendental decision to superiority," he asserts.

The matter is relevant to this part because the appealing decree executed a previous judicial decision. Resolution that, he assures, was not notified by the judge. "However, this prior order is not notified to this party because the same order establishes it by decision of the instructor," recalls the lawyer.

For the defense, maintaining that decision would be equivalent to validating that resolutions not notified to the parties "may be the premise of other subsequent decisions that are materially irrecurrible because they have their premise in the previous one not notified."

The decision that they wanted to appeal executed the expungement of certain police reports --up to three-- related to that piece 28 and the main piece. The judge had ordered these police investigations to be included in an ad hoc room that would house all the expungements, something like a mixed bag where he could leave all the reports that he preferred to remove from the rooms, and to which the parties do not have access.

The defense, indicates the appeal, after finding out that he had not had access to that order, went to court to ask to see it, but the State Administration Lawyer informed him that if he had not had access to the content of that order was due "to the game of the order itself of May 12 in which it was provided that it be notified exclusively to the public prosecutor's office."

For all this, Villarejo's defense raises this complaint to the Chamber and insists that there is a violation of the fundamental right to defense. It also recalls that there was already a previous decision, from March, in which the Chamber amended a decision by García-Castellón and forced him to give access to the proceedings in that piece 28 "in the judicial office and without obtaining copies."

Throughout his presentation, the lawyer asserts that since it is evident that there are files that have not been notified, they now doubt "about the existence of many other similar decisions issued from the beginning of the case that have been stolen."

"If it is the instructor himself who decides what is notified to the parties and what is not, including his own decisions, he becomes the owner and lord of the instruction, deciding which part of it and which documents must remain in an arcane that only he should know", he laments.

Thus, it indicates that given the seriousness of the matter, "which already exceeds any imaginable limit in a criminal process of a democratic state of law", it is worth asking how many decisions have been issued in the case that have involved "concealment of the material that was intervened --to the commissioner-- and that has been the only source and means of proof of charge against him".