You are currently viewing The judge of the Ghali case keeps Laya charged despite filing his former number two

The head of the Investigating Court Number 7 of Zaragoza, Raphael Lasalahas agreed to lift the charge to Camilo Villarinothe former director of the Cabinet of Arancha Gonzalez Layawithin the framework of the cause that is open for the entry into Spain of the leader of the Polisario Front, Brahim Ghali. The magistrate, however, rejects the arguments put forward by the State Attorney to defend the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, to which he maintains imputed.

“Everything seems to point to the fact that Camilo Villarino was only informed from the Ministry of the Interior of the pending criminal cases against Ghali when he had already been in Spain for several days (in the controversial assumption that he knew of the procedural situation of the Saharawi leader) without he would have been informed about such particular before for who chose him as a highly qualified professional to manage his arrival in Spain,” Lasala maintains in a car to which El Confidencial has had access.

The Lawyer recognizes that Ghali’s doctor was able to enter Spain “illegally”

Paul Gabilondo

The magistrate keeps an investigation open for possible crimes of passport forgery, prevarication and concealment. His suspicion focuses on the fact that the Government could facilitate Ghali’s illegal entry into Spain by not forcing him to pass a customs control after landing at the Zaragoza Air Base on April 18 and, after lifting the charge against Villarino, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs now stands as the only one investigated.

As he argues, the proceedings carried out to date show that Villarejo is “someone outside the group of people who —in his case, it is insisted— hthey would have known about the judicial interest on Brahim Ghali and even more so with respect to who had made the decision not to communicate anything in such a case to the Central Court of Instruction [de la Audiencia Nacional]”For the moment, Lasala considers that this reasoning cannot be extended to the former head of Foreign Affairs.

Contrary to the opinion of the Prosecutor

The magistrate adopts this decision after the State Attorney’s Office defended on February 8 that “there was no crime that could be attributed to them.” After consulting the rest of the parties, the Prosecutor’s Office “interested in the provisional file regarding the two“, but Lasala only attends to this request in the case of Villarejo.

“The Public Prosecutor partially agrees because it believes the provisional file is appropriate and not the free dismissal and whoever decides is also, at least in terms of documentary falsity attributed to the two represented by the Legal Profession, since so far no indication has been obtained that they participated in the falsification of a personal identification document or in the presentation of the same at the Hospital de San Pedro, in Logroño”, acknowledges the judge at first.

Photo: The former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arancha González Laya, upon leaving the court.  (EFE)
“Secret or reserved”: the Zapatero agreement that Laya clings to in the Ghali case

Paul Gabilondo

“It is also not possible to speak of a cover-up of the crimes for which Brahim Ghali was being investigated in two different cases of a Central Investigating Court (one already dismissed and the other converted into a summary) because, coinciding with what was stated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, The cover-up implies that those under investigation must have known of the commission of the crime, something that is difficult to predict when, since those attributed to the aforementioned person are very serious, the most they could have known is that he was reported or sued for one or several crimes, something very different from knowing -with more or less precision- who has committed them“, he adds in his car.

In this way, the investigation is for the moment reduced to a possible prevarication, a crime incurred by “the authority or public official who, knowing his injustice, dictates an arbitrary resolution in an administrative matter.” The Penal Code punishes this behavior with a penalty of special disqualification from employment or public office and for the exercise of the right to passive suffrage from 9 to 15 years, but not with jail sentences.

Source

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

Then24

The News 24 is the place where you get news about the World. we cover almost every topic so that you don’t need to find other sites.

Leave a Reply