Upset in the Supreme by the "falsehoods" by Minister Belarra on the conviction of Rodríguez

Rains, it pours. As happened with former vice president Pablo Iglesias as a result of the sentence against Isabel Serra, once again members of the Government belonging to United We can disqualify the judges for the conviction of another of their own, in this case the deputy Alberto Rodríguez, former secretary of organization by UP.

On the 7th, the same day that the sentence of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court was known against the Canarian parliamentarian for attacking a policeman, the leaders of Podemos came out in a flood to condemn the sentence. Among others, Minister Irene Montero said that it is necessary to “defend democracy against the criminalization of the constitutional right to demonstrate” and Minister Alberto Garzón indicated that “no reactionary force can stain” the “decency, dignity and social commitment” of the deputy Rodríguez.

“We have discounted these types of demonstrations about ‘reactionary’, ‘undemocratic’ and ‘repressors of fundamental rights’ judges,” they say in the Criminal Chamber, where the statement is still considered “regrettable.” “lack of institutional respect” which represents that “continually” attempts are made to discredit the Judicial Branch from another branch of the State.

But the intervention of Ione Belarra this Thursday in an interview with Carlos Alsina in Onda Cero has raised the unease in the Chamber. “That a minister comes out to tell falsehoods against a court, which is also the Supreme Court, is unacceptable,” they say.

“For doing politics”

In less than ten minutes Grass did five statements contrary to the truth. He argued that the sentence imposed on Rodríguez for a crime of attack against an agent to the authority has been due to the fact that, like Serra, they are “people who have played a relevant role in United We Can.” “For having exercised responsibilities they have suffered a process of criminalization, which is the clearest example that when you do politics for the people, when you don’t owe a single euro to the banks, that’s what happens “, said the Minister of Social Affairs, according to which” we are talking about a impeachment, in which people are being persecuted for doing politics. “

However, the events for which Rodríguez was convicted occurred on January 25, 2014, two years before Rodríguez was elected deputy in Congress. At that time Podemos had not even registered as a party and Rodríguez did not exercise any political responsibility.

To try to argue that Alberto Rodríguez has been “persecuted” for doing politics, Belarra asserted that “he was not in the proceedings [judicial] From the beginning. He enters the procedure once he is already a deputy of Podemos. “

It is the Second falsehood of the Secretary General of United We Can. Rodríguez was denounced by the Police in 2014 and since then had the status of being investigated in the Court of Instruction number 4 of San Cristóbal de La Laguna. They were the preliminary proceedings 231/2014 for alleged crimes of attack against an agent of the authority and injuries.

The rest of the accused ended up being sentenced in Tenerife for these events. Rodríguez was not because, when he was elected deputy, he acquired procedural jurisdiction before the Supreme Court and the judge of La Laguna had to send to the Criminal Chamber what referred to him.

“For being in a demonstration”

According to Belarra, “Rodríguez has been condemned for being in a demonstration defending public education.” The truth is that the conviction has been, according to the proven facts, for “kick on the knee to the agent of the National Police Corps nº xxx, who, duly uniformed, was fulfilling the functions of his position, which, as a result of that, suffered a contusion from which he cured in one day without impediment to his usual activities ”. The attack occurred in the course of a confrontation with the Police by some protesters who were protesting against the presence of the then Minister of Education, José Ignacio Wert, in La Laguna.

The sentence of the Criminal Chamber rules out that the assault on the police officer had nothing to do with the right to demonstrate: “Many people made use of that right on that occasion and only those who were accused of violent acts were arrested,” he argued. the sentence, written by Miguel Colmenero, one of the most prestigious magistrates of the Supreme Court. “Violence is not inherent in the exercise of the rights of assembly and demonstration. The accusation sustained in this case has nothing to do with the exercise of these fundamental rights, but with the use of violence, in the course of its exercise, against the agents of the authority who are in the performance of their functions. “

During the trial, Alberto Rodríguez denied being at the scene at the time of the physical confrontations between the agents and the concentrates. However, this was denied in the recordings provided by the Police and in the videos provided by his defense.

Alberto Rodríguez, in one of the frames of the videos provided by the Police. /

AND AND

Photogram of Rodríguez's situation in front of the riot police./

Photogram of Rodríguez’s situation in front of the riot police./

AND AND

Although Belarra stated in Onda Cero that “The videos have not been accepted as evidence”, The truth is that the Chamber accepted all the recordings that the defense wanted to contribute and they were screened during the hearing.

According to the minister, “there is evidence in which he is seen in a sequence shot all the time that he was not where the riots occurred. ” It is also false. There is evidence of Rodríguez’s presence in front of the riot police and his own defender admitted, to questions from the president of the Chamber, Manuel Marchena, that the videos were mounted, so that the recording does not respond to what happened “all the time.” , as Belarra argues.

Rodríguez’s lawyer: “The videos have been edited”

The head of Social Affairs said that Alberto Rodríguez had been convicted “without any objective evidence.” Then she corrected herself and said that there had been “only one testimony”, according to her, “weak”, referring to the injured policeman.

The agent is, in effect, the fundamental proof of the conviction. Five magistrates of the Supreme Criminal Chamber, compared to two who advocated acquittal, did not consider the testimony of the police to be weak. They argued this way: “In their statements did not express any doubt regarding the fact that the accused was the one who voluntarily kicked him in his left knee, during the incidents that took place. “

Such statement is corroborated by the fact of having gone immediately after the events to receive medical assistance and by the early police identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the events. “

“The witness credibility It is also supported by the persistence in the version maintained from the beginning and by the absence of any kind of animosity against the accused. Effectively, He was only charged with the kick in the knee, excluding other injuries that he presented in the hand, and clearly stated that the memories he has of the accused in other demonstrations are of normal behavior, as opposed to violent “.

The TS exonerated him in 2018

This is the second criminal proceeding that the Supreme Court has processed against Alberto Rodríguez since he was measured. On May 30, 2018, the pursuers High court judges exonerated him of an alleged crime of public disorder that was charged with a altercation with local police in La Laguna (Tenerife) in the early morning of December 25, 2006.

According to the provisional qualification letter from the Prosecutor’s Office raised at the time to the La Laguna Examining Court that took the case, at dawn on Christmas Day 2006, after an identification carried out at a control of the Local Police of La Laguna in a device against drug consumption, there was supposedly a “harassment” of Alberto Rodríguez and other defendants towards the police, “proceeding the defendants to reprimand the people who were there consuming alcoholic beverages, causing them to throw bottles, glasses and other objects”.

Two of the defendants accepted a sentence of conformity at the time. In Rodríguez’s case, after sending the proceedings to the Criminal Chamber, his presumed criminal responsibility by prescription was declared extinguished.

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

Leave a Reply