Judge Calama asks for the leaks in the Zapatero case to be investigated

MadridThe day after José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero's private conversations and schedules came to light, Judge José Luis Calama, the instructor of the Plus Ultra case at the Audiencia Nacional, has requested that the leaks be investigated. Calama has sent the request to the Madrid courts, urging them to identify those responsible for the leaks, which he considers potentially criminal. The magistrate emphasizes that the facts have "gravity" and could fit into criminal offenses of revealing reserved proceedings. In parallel, the former Spanish president has requested Calama to declare all actions in the case null and void due to the violation of four fundamental rights. According to the document, to which ARA has had access, Zapatero denounces that an "illicitly analyzed piece of evidence" has been incorporated into the proceedings.

"Constant and immediate leaks"

The filtering of the content of Zapatero's whatsapps and diaries for 2024 and 2025, which include information unrelated to the investigation, is not the only one that has occurred recently. Just last week, the recording of the almost three-hour statement was leaked by the former president before the judge. In an order, the magistrate complains that "from the moment" the proceedings "were made available to the parties involved" through the Cloud platform, there have been "constant and immediate leaks" to the media. This behavior reached its "peak" this Wednesday with the "full" publication of the annexes of the latest report from the Economic and Fiscal Crimes Unit (UDEF) of the National Police, relating to Zapatero's alleged dealings in Bolivia to benefit a Peruvian company.

Beyond requesting that another judicial instance investigate these leaks and the possible criminal responsibilities arising from them, Calama has decided to tighten access to the case documentation for the involved parties. The judge has created a "sensitive information" file with audiovisual recordings of the testimonies of witnesses and investigated parties, to which only the presiding court and the Prosecutor's Office will have access. The rest of the parties will only be able to consult the transcription of the content and, if they wish to view or listen to them, they will have to do so in person at the National Court without the possibility of taking a copy. This is the same measure taken by the judge who investigated the Attorney General of the State. Furthermore, from now on, only the PP, which directs the popular prosecutions, will be able to access the Cloud directly.

Among the popular prosecutions in this case are far-right parties, such as Vox, and ultra-right organizations like Manos Limpias and Hazte Oír, which are also involved. The leak of Zapatero's conversations and diaries drew complaints from the former president's circle, who called it an "scandal" and pointed to legal action. Additionally, La Moncloa criticized that there are increasingly more leaks of this type, and the PSOE denounced that it responded to a "witch hunt".

Zapatero accuses the Prosecutor's Office of "directing" the payroll towards judges of "greater convenience"

Zapatero's other move was made with a new filing of an eminently procedural nature. In other words, it does not try to distance itself from the facts or deny irregularities, but rather focuses on attacking the origin, obtaining, and analysis of the evidence against him. It is a maneuver that is added to the one he made two days ago. In the new filing, consulted by ARA, he denounces that his rights to a judge predetermined by law, to a fair trial with all guarantees, to effective judicial protection without defenselessness, and to the presumption of innocence have been violated.

Specifically, he is very harsh with the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, headed by Alejandro Luzón. After reviewing the long journey that the Plus Ultra case experienced from 2021 until Zapatero's indictment, the former Spanish president's defense accuses the public prosecutor's office of having carried out "parallel investigations", of having wanted to "assume without reservation" the role of the investigating judges, and of having promoted "maneuvers aimed at leading the process towards the most convenient judicial bodies".

In this case, he particularly focuses on the information obtained from a request from France and wants to ensure that there was an express judicial authorization that validated the analysis of the mobile phone conversations of lawyer Miguel Palomero. He warns that its absence would constitute an "unauthorized interference" in the right to the secrecy of communications, privacy, and personal data protection. And he warns of the reservations that must be taken into account when reusing "material" for "purposes and procedures" other than those for which it was "lawfully obtained". Finally, he warns that if all this has not been done correctly, an "effect of chained nullities" must occur up to the last resolution of the case because the original report with the chats in dispute is the one on which "rests" the complaint that led to the investigation by the National Court.