This Tuesday, Begoña Gómez sent the judge investigating her a letter in which she stated her “impossibility” of testifying next Monday in court because she is invited to attend the G-20 summit in Brazil. The popular accusations in the case do not understand “what is the role” that the wife of the president of the Government has to play in the world summit, and have asked the judge Juan Carlos Peinado to maintain the subpoena and withdraw Gómez’s passport in case his lawyer does not confirm his attendance to the deposition.
In October, Brazil’s first lady, Janja Lula da Silva, sent a letter to Gomez inviting her to the summit to be held on the 18th and 19th of this month. A missive that Gómez’s lawyer, Antonio Camacho, attached to the letter sent to the 41st Court of Instruction of Madrid, where the proceedings are taking place. “By means of the present letter we inform the court the impossibility for my client to attend on the aforementioned day since he will be on an official visit to the Federative Republic of Brazil”, states the document drafted by Camacho.
Just one day after the letter arrived at the court, the popular accusations have reproached the judge that Gómez believes she “deserves a different treatment than any other citizen before Justice”. They consider that the investigated should have communicated “with the maximum anticipation” of her possible absence.which should be more justified. “He should give absolute priority to the court summons,” recounts the brief of the accusations.
Gomez’s lawyer defended that Monday’s summons – in which the judge would notify the investigated the extension of the case after admitting a new complaint – is not necessary. “No rule imposes that the notification of the aforementioned complaint be personal,” explains Camacho, who considers “safeguarded” the right to defense of his client.
To this allegation, the popular accusations respond that “if the investigated considered that she did not have to go personally to the court order she could perfectly well have filed the appropriate appeal. at the established procedural moment”. They go even further and, apart from requesting that the request to annul the summons not be upheld, they ask the judge to withdraw the passport of the investigated person.
In fact, the accusations highlight that the presence of Gómez in the G-20 can be conflictive. “Taking into account the offenses that are being analyzed. [tráfico de influencias, corrupción privada y ahora también apropiación indebida e intrusismo]We could argue that it is counterproductive to allow this activity,” they state in their brief.
They add, in this sense, that the crimes being investigated “were committed in a framework of meetings and gatherings that, although they were called professional, were also institutional”. In these meetings, they conclude, “the investigator took advantage of them for her own business activity”, so that “it is not at all far-fetched to say that it would be opened the possibility of criminal reiteration“.
Having stated these arguments, the accusations request the instructor Juan Carlos Peinado to force Gómez to go to court and to withdraw Begoña Gómez’s passport in case her defense does not confirm her attendance to court.