Could the falsehoods of Mazón and Vilaplana have consequences?

BarcelonaThe versions of events presented by former Valencian president Carlos Mazón and journalist Maribel Vilaplana regarding the afternoon of October 29, 2024, have been constantly changing. They have often had to alter their story when statements from other key figures involved in the management of the DANA storm—which caused 229 deaths in Valencia—have contradicted them. WhatsApps The documents that former Valencian regional minister Salomé Pradas handed over last Friday are the latest example of all this and further expose Mazón, who at 4:30 p.m. already knew there was a death in Utiel and yet decided to continue having lunch with Vilaplana. Furthermore, in court, the journalist denied that during lunch Mazón called the president of the Valencia Provincial Council, Vicent Mompó, after she received a message with images of the damage in Utiel. Mompó contradicted her, admitting in a recent interview that the call did take place (six minutes after Vilaplana received the message, in fact), and the investigating judge considered it "highly improbable" that the journalist did not hear the conversation. The question now is: Could Mazón and Vilaplana face any legal consequences for changing their stories? First, we must differentiate between their individual situations. The former president of the Valencian Generalitat retains his seat in the Valencian Parliament (Les Corts) and, therefore, his parliamentary immunity. For this reason, the judge in Catarroja investigating the handling of the DANA storm cannot formally charge him. Only when he leaves his seat will the magistrate have free rein to include him in the case as a suspect. This Saturday, relatives of the victims of the storm demanded that Mazón leave the Valencian Parliament after the revelations... WhatsApps de Pradas.

"The Spanish judicial model is based on guarantees. That is, the rights of the accused are protected, and it is the accuser who must provide evidence," explains Josep Joan Moreso, a jurist and professor of philosophy of law at Pompeu Fabra University (UPF). "The accused is authorized not to do anything that might incriminate them." For now, Mazón has only appeared before the commissions investigating the DANA storm in the Valencian Parliament (Corts) and the Congress of Deputies, where he was indeed obligated to tell the truth. Article 502.3 of the Penal Code stipulates fines and even prison sentences of between six and twelve months for lying in these commissions. However, no one has ever been convicted under this article.

Is it the crime of perjury?

Vilaplana's case is different. The journalist appeared in court as a witness. In this capacity, she is indeed obligated to tell the truth, an obligation the court reiterates in the courtroom: "You are told that you have the obligation to tell the truth, and if you fail to do so, you are warned that you may be breaching your obligation and, therefore, committing the crime of perjury," explains the associate professor of criminal law.

However, Jordi Nieva, professor of procedural law at the University of Barcelona, points out that, both in Mazón's case in the Valencian Parliament and the Congress of Deputies, and in Vilaplana's case in the courts, it is a crime "that is not easy to prosecute." "We are asking for a vivid photographic memory of events that took place more than a year ago, and with the passage of time, memories become blurred and are reinterpreted," warns the professor, who reminds us that "you cannot convict someone to make a mistake." Olivet explains that the line between a half-truth or a falsehood resulting from the ambiguity caused by the passage of time and a punishable false statement is very fine and can be interpreted as being crossed when what is stated clearly differs from reality and affects "core issues" of the case. In any case, the lie should be "flagrant" and it should be possible to prove that it was intentional.

Since the crime of perjury is very difficult to prove, because it is complicated to determine if a false statement was made deliberately, "it is most likely that [in Vilaplana] she will be summoned to testify again," Olivet points out. For the moment, after her statement, the private prosecution requested that a separate case be opened against her for perjury based on statements they suspect do not correspond to reality. One example is the fact that Vilaplana did not hear the call between Mazón and Mompó that November afternoon. Although the judge considered this "highly improbable" given the size of the private room where the former president and the journalist had lunch, she declined to open an investigation against her for perjury. For the time being, she also ruled out summoning her to testify again. This will remain the case, at least, until further contradictory information emerges from her testimony.