The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court will not open a criminal process to the second vice president of the Government, Pablo Iglesias, for the so-called Dina case, a part of the Tandem macroprocess in which the leak to the press of messages stored on Dina Bousselham’s mobile is investigated , former advisor to the leader of United We Can.
The magistrates have made a decision on the exposition that was submitted to the High Court on October 7 by the judge of the National Court Manuel García-Castellón. The instructor of the Tandem case maintains that Iglesias may have committed alleged crimes of discovery and disclosure of secrets aggravated by gender, computer damage, false report or simulation of crime for accessing Bousselham’s mobile without his consent, then spoiling the memory card and attributing to former commissioner Villarejo the delivery of messages to related media in order to harm Iglesias himself.
However, the judge of the National Court has addressed the Supreme Court without having previously made Essential steps on which the viability of the exhibition depends and, therefore, of the very claim to open a criminal process to Iglesias, sources from the high court point out.
Requirement to act
So that a crime of revealing secrets can be prosecuted, the Penal Code requires the complaint of the victim and García-Castellón has not fulfilled this prerequisite. What’s more, despite the fact that the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office asked him repeatedly, he has never wanted to summon Bousselham to ask him if he wants to act criminally against Iglesias.
In reality, what appears in the piece Dina contradicts García-Castellón’s claim to incriminate Pablo Iglesias: Bousselham has presented numerous writings in which she has made it clear that she considers the leader of United We can as much a victim as herself of what they both called “the sewers of the State”, personalized in Villarejo.
García-Castellón opened the piece Dina against Villarejo on March 19, 2019 because a copy of the files stored on the device of Dina Bousselham was found at her home, who reported the theft of her mobile in November 2015.
But in the course of the investigations, it was discovered that it was Iglesias who had in his possession a copy of the memory card of his advisor’s phone, which he received in January 2016 from the president of Grupo Zeta, Antonio Asensio.
Iglesias has admitted to the judge having examined the card that Asensio gave him. He was given by journalists from Interviú who claim to have received it anonymously.
According to García-Castellón, Iglesias “verified that personal and very intimate files of Bousselham were stored in the device” and “Despite this, the card was kept in his possession” without telling your former advisor.
In the elevated exposition to the Supreme he also assures that “it is known that when [Iglesias] returns the card is unusable for its operation ”, a fact taken from an initial statement by Bousselham, but which she later corrected.
In this regard, as the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office pointed out in an opinion contrary to the opening of the case at this time, the Supreme Court magistrates consider it necessary to continue carrying out proceedings on the card and question Bousseham to clarify the contradictions on whether he could or not access its content once Pablo Iglesias returned it to him.
García-Castellón maintains that the second vice president of the Government appeared as the injured party in the Dina case to try to obtain electoral advantages by presenting himself as a victim of the ‘state sewers’.
According to the judge, when Iglesias attributed the leak of the messages to former commissioner José Manuel Villarejo “knew beforehand” that his advisor was “the origin of the leak”, since he had made screenshots and forwarded them to third parties. Those messages, spread by OKdiario and then by other means as of July 2016, they left Pablo Iglesias in a bad place, drawing the image of a macho man who would have liked to “whip [la presentadora] Mariló Montero until he bled. “
García-Castellón affirms that Pablo Iglesias “fraudulently used” the piece Dina “to try to achieve some kind of electoral advantage, despite knowing the character
falsifier of the accusations he intended to sustain “.
But, contradictorily, García-Castellón himself has issued a resolution by which he has closed the investigation of the Dina case and affirms that there are indications to try Villarejo and the two Interviú journalists who received the card for an alleged crime of revealing secrets .
The Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, which was not consulted about the elevation of the exposure against Iglesias, has appealed that decision because it considers that the instructor has closed an investigation “in false” in which there are still steps to be carried out, including whether Villarejo put from the Police the files of Dina’s mobile.