Ábalos and Koldo return to the Supreme Court after two months in jail and question its jurisdiction

Madrid77 days after the Supreme Court will send them to jailJosé Luis Ábalos and Koldo García have temporarily left Soto del Real prison for the preliminary hearing in their trial for the purchase of face masks, which is scheduled to take place in the coming weeks. This unprecedented hearing was established under the law on efficiency in the justice system, which came into effect ten months ago. The former number three of the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) and his former advisor at the Ministry of Transport arrived at the Supreme Court in a Spanish police van at 10:30 a.m., half an hour before the scheduled hearing. The third defendant, Víctor de Aldama, also attended, although he is free and had not made any statements. For the first time, all three appeared together in the dock and faced the seven judges who will preside over their case.

Seeking to discredit Víctor de Aldama's account, Koldo García's lawyer, Leticia de la Hoz, requested that the two defendants undergo a cross-examination to compare their versions and that he be subjected to a polygraph test. The court has not yet ruled on this. She also recused five of the seven judges: four who initially accepted the case because they have a "formed opinion," and Julián Sánchez Melgar, who was Attorney General during the last six months of Mariano Rajoy's presidency, on the grounds that he has a "clear affinity" with the People's Party (PP), one of the private prosecutors. But the court has rejected this request. Throughout the hearing, the defense teams for Ábalos and Koldo have shown a clear alignment, converging on many of their arguments and requests, in contrast to Aldama's lawyer, who has largely followed the lead of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the PP. He requests a reduction in his sentence—which is already less than those of Ábalos and Koldo—due to his "proactive" cooperation with the justice system. The public prosecutor He is asking for 24 years in prison. for Ábalos, 19 and a half years for Koldo and seven years for Aldama.

Who should judge them?

Koldo and Ábalos' main complaint is that, after the former minister resigns as deputyThe case must be sent to the National Court because no one with parliamentary immunity is involved, which is the only reason the investigation was in the hands of the Supreme Court. Koldo's lawyer went so far as to say that the Supreme Court is maintaining jurisdiction "arbitrarily," a statement she retracted after a reprimand from the court's president, Andrés Martínez Arrieta. Before the hearing began, she made one last desperate move: requesting that the Supreme Court submit five preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and suspend the proceedings until they are resolved. Ábalos's lawyer, Marino Turiel, agrees with this assessment. He argued that his "legitimate" departure from politics had an "economic connotation" and was not a "delaying tactic."He wants to earn income"," he exclaimed.

In contrast, José Antonio Choclán, Aldama's lawyer, stated that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is "unequivocal" and argued that the court trying a case "cannot depend on the will" of one of the defendants. He also denied that the businessman had reached any agreement. He justified sending the case now to the National Court by saying that it would cause "undue delays" and "violate the right to a trial within a reasonable time." Finally, the PP's lawyer—who is leading the private prosecutions—Alberto Durán, argued that Koldo's future "is linked" to Ábalos's: