Begoña Gómez hands passport to judge Peinado

MadridThere is a comparison between two fashionable judges who are currently making a name for themselves: José Luis Calama, who is investigating José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero at the National High Court, and Juan Carlos Peinado, who has sent Begoña Gómez to trial after a two-year investigation. It is clear to everyone that the way these two major media cases in which they are involved are being handled is different. Indeed, high-ranking officials from Moncloa can be seen in the corridors of Congress admitting that Calama "is not" Peinado, as evidenced by the fact that the investigation into the former Spanish president, still in its early stages, does not have the extravagances of the indictment of Pedro Sánchez's wife. The vast difference between the two has become particularly apparent in two matters: the adoption of precautionary measures and the indictment of individuals who have previously testified under oath to tell the truth. Let's take it step by step.

The withdrawal of the passport

One of the big bombshells of recent days has been Judge Peinado's decision to revoke Begoña Gómez's passport and prohibit her from leaving the State. Sánchez's wife made the document handover effective this Wednesday afternoon, during a brief visit to the Madrid courts. What has caused the most controversy has been the justification that the National Police officers acting as her escort could help her flee on their "own initiative" or "following orders from their hierarchical superiors." It is an insinuation that has put police unions on alert and has even led the General Council of the Judiciary to open proceedings to discipline the judge.to open disciplinary proceedings against the judge.

His argument had just gone around when he added that, since Pedro Sánchez's presidency is of an "ephemeral" and "transitory" nature, the agents' escort "would disappear" and "would further facilitate" a hypothetical escape. The origin of the risk was – simply – that the "possibility" of being sentenced to prison could lead her to want to "evade justice." This was sufficient reason to prevent her from leaving Spain to avoid it.

Far from this justification, Judge Calama rejected withdrawing Zapatero's passport as requested by both the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office and the popular prosecutions led by the PP. "The seriousness of the imputed crime is not enough, an individualized analysis is necessary," he stated. This is a reason that fully refutes what Peinado would allege three days later.

The order also warned that withdrawing the passport cannot be a "form of pressure" nor a "covert punishment" and referred to Zapatero's "public visibility" and "clear ties to the territory," along with "the absence of any indication of evasive intent," to dismiss it. The last two factors also undoubtedly apply to Begoña Gómez. "It would mean an unjustified restriction, incompatible with the principle of proportionality," he reiterated.

From witnesses to defendants

The other major decision by Judge Calama last week was to impute Zapatero's two daughters. And the argument with which he justified it is not futile. He alleged that, given their alleged involvement in the suspected events, summoning them as investigated persons was "necessary" to preserve their fundamental rights. And he called to "avoid any action that may place a person in a situation of forced self-incrimination" if there is a "reasonable possibility" that they may end up indicted. In other words, having them testify as witnesses "would generate a risk" because the obligation to tell the truth "would irreversibly compromise" their right not to testify against themselves and not to confess guilt.

However, far from this caution, over two years of investigation, Judge Peinado has indicted four people – and attempted to indict a fifth – who had previously testified as witnesses. The Public Prosecutor's Office even reproached him for showing "indifference or confusion" between the two roles. The most blatant case is that of Cristina Álvarez, Begoña Gómez's advisor at Moncloa. He indicted her a month and a half after she testified as a witness, despite having rejected it nineteen days earlier – and without any new developments.

His lawyer accused him of having "set a trap" for him and the Madrid Court ended up annulling the declaration as a witness with a reminder: "The requirement that, from the moment he is suspected of having participated in the punishable act, the accused does not testify as a witness," he recalled. The Madrid Court has recognized that this "mutation" is "valid" if suspicions arise, but has made it clear that incriminating statements as a witness cannot be valued if they are not subsequently ratified and that it is necessary to resort to evidence obtained "autonomously and diversely".

The other affected parties were Juan Carlos Barrabés –an entrepreneur who will end up on the defendant's bench–, Joaquín Goyache –rector of the Complutense University– and Juan José Güemes –director of the IE Business School–. In the first case, the Madrid Court reprimanded Peinado: "He should always have been heard as an investigated person for the simple reason that his direct involvement was known from the start." The Madrid Court acquitted the other two because the charge had no basis. And Peinado also made the same maneuver with Minister Félix Bolaños, but the Supreme Court – which is competent to investigate him as a privileged person – stopped him for "the absolute absence of any minimally founded or minimally plausible indication".