"There is no doubt that we are facing a general case": Cerdán requests provisional release

MadridSantos Cerdán, who has been in pretrial detention since Monday afternoon, requested his provisional release this Thursday. In the appeal filed by his lawyer, former CUP member of Parliament Benet Salellas, a defense strategy implemented from the outset that combines strictly judicial and political aspects is clearly outlined. "The case combines aspects related to his political life. Therefore, it is logical that in the explanations offered by the person under investigation, he also seeks reasons for his procedural status in the political world," he argues in the document, claiming that Cerdán's situation is due—according to the complaint—to his having been "the architect of progressive governments in Spain." testify at his appearance before the Supreme Court.

Avoid 'lawfare'

Cerdán must be able to talk about politics

One of the incontrovertible facts of the case is that the PP and Vox, acting as private prosecutors, requested Cerdán's imprisonment, and Salellas calls for "extreme caution" and "increased critical filtering" to "avoid a botched political misuse of the administration of justice." It is a "serious offense" when Cerdán presented himself as a victim of a political cause and believes that the former number three of the PSOE should be able to discuss politics as a suspect.

The lawyer maintains that the fraudulent works have not been carried out.

"We are clearly in the situation considered by jurisprudence as a prospective investigation," says Salellas. "The conduct of a suspect is blindly investigated to see if...", complains the lawyer, citing a publication by Supreme Court Justice Vicente Magro in a Civil Guard training magazine. "The specific projects or contracts in which my client allegedly participated in a criminal case are still not clearly defined today," he says. Therefore, he concludes: "There is no doubt that we are facing a general case against Santos Cerdán and that the objective is to investigate to see if Finally, there is a strong indication that it is related to some criminal activity."

The works investigated

There are no commissions linked to Servinabar

In this regard, the lawyer compiles the contracts cited for the Servinabar company and separates them from Cerdán or the investigation itself. For example, regarding the Belate tunnel project in Navarre, he emphasizes that the judge himself stated in a ruling that "they are not the subject of the proceedings." Regarding the Servinabar company, the Civil Guard points to two projects: the Muga Mine, for which "there is no record of any authorization or award by the government," and the Navarra Arena project in Pamplona. Both were carried out between 2015 and 2017, and Cerdán "did not hold any public office in the public administration, and his party was in the opposition." "He could have had little influence over these processes," the document emphasizes.

Secondly, Salellas wants to point out that there is no award to a joint venture between Acciona and Servinabar, but that the concessions analyzed by Acciona are always with other collaborating companies, such as Levantina Ingeniera y Construcción (LIC) and Obras Públicas y Regadíos (OPR). Specifically, the businessmen also under investigation, José Ruz (LIC) and the brothers Antonio and Daniel Fernández Menéndez (OPR), are summoned to testify this Friday. "It is incomprehensible how the circumstantial narrative is constructed from Mr. Santos' direct relationship with Servinabar if this company also appears to be unrelated to the awards under investigation," Salellas criticizes.

The alteration of evidence

He claims that they are non-existent.

One of the basic reasons for arguing for provisional imprisonment by Judge Leopoldo Puente is the risk that Cerdán could "alter evidence", not so much destroy it as "condition" or influence witnesses, according to sources from the investigation who explained to ARA. Salellas strongly disagrees with this reasoning because he believes that, instead of trying to preserve specific and defined evidence from the judge, what is really happening is that he has not found it. "It is not enough to pose a risk of destruction of evidence in a completely abstract and generic way," he warns, citing European jurisprudence.

"The court is trying to protect alleged sources of evidence that are nothing more than the confirmation of the nonexistence of sources of evidence against Cerdán [...]. The judicial body is building on nothing and is trying to protect sources of evidence without knowing what evidence it is defending," the lawyer complains harshly, going so far as to speak of "fruit." In this regard, he emphasizes that "no enrichment or increase in assets has been found in recent years," that "there is no record of any communication between Cerdán and the construction companies, nor of the existence of payments, claims, collections, or transfers of assets between Cerdán and the successful bidders."

The amount defrauded

Judicial creativity

The lawyer also refers to Puente's hypothesis that the The amount defrauded could reach five million euros If a calculation is made of the percentage of commission extracted from the volume of the awards. "The 1% is being talked about purely out of judicial creativity, said with the utmost respect, because there is nothing in the case that allows for establishing that percentage. In fact, neither this one nor any other," he emphasizes in the document.

Doubts about the audio recordings

He insists that Koldo could be an undercover agent.

For now, the strongest evidence, according to the judge, is the audio recordings between Koldo García, former minister José Luis Ábalos, and Cerdán. As he did on Monday during the pretrial detention debate, Salellas insists on the shadow of doubt cast over the former advisor's record and raises the hypothesis that he may be an undercover Civil Guard agent. "Audio recordings made and preserved in fragments for years by a possible police collaborator who ends up as a co-investigator are not the best guaranteeing, objective, and independent evidence for granting pretrial detention in a democratic criminal trial," he says.

The presumption of innocence

An 'against the accused' interpretation of the evidence

Given this scenario, Salellas denounces that the Supreme Court has made an interpretation of the evidence that exists so far against a prisoner rather pro prisoner, thereby violating the presumption of innocence. "It's a purely inquisitorial perspective at all times," he complains, because it "completely uncritically accepts the UCO report." "The ruling doesn't assess the material from a perspective." pro prisoner and when the procedural perspective is adopted against a prisoner There is no material that could be considered incriminating, much less to agree to such a restrictive measure," he concludes.

Attempted confession?

An "investigative torture"

Finally, Cerdán's defense also denounces the "injustice" regarding the rest of the suspects, who are not in pretrial detention, and points out that businessman Víctor de Aldama was released in a case involving fraud in the hydrocarbon sector in exchange for confessing about the Koldo case. Salellas warns that it would be a "radically illegitimate purpose" to order pretrial detention to extract a confession. If so, "it would place the investigation very close to interrogatory torture."

Now, this appeal will have to be resolved by judges Pablo Llarena, Juan Ramón Berdugo, and Antonio del Moral, three of the conservative judges involved in the Proceso case. The first as the investigating judge and the other two because they were part of the court that sentenced the 1-O suspects.