Magistrate Nuria Ruiz Tobarra, head of the Court of Instruction 3 of Catarroja and judge who directs the previous proceedings in the case of the DANA has rejected the requested by the Liberum Association of writing written to the presidency of the Government and the National Security Council so that both certify whether or not President Pedro Sánchez convened the National Security Council on the day of the devastating. The denial of the aforementioned diligence consists of an auto referred to the parties on Wednesday. The judge’s car has not gone unnoticed by some of the parties, which have come to qualify it as “absolutely scandalous.”
In another part of the car, which seems to be aimed at the appearance of this Monday of the delegate of the Pilar Bernabé government as a witness, the judge argues that asking her for her responsibility in the flood of October 29 is «contrary to the rules in good faiththat the action of the parties in the criminal process must govern ».
There is the circumstance that, this November 7, the news was ran in different media National Security had alerted Pedro Sánchez and his government what was coming 12 hours before the catastrophe was triggered. Specifically, at 8 in the morning. The crisis committee met at night and chaired by Vice President María Jesús Montero, since at that time Sanchez was returning from a trip to India, as various media also collected that day.
In her letter, the judge states that: “The analysis of the call of the National Security Council remains completely from the criminal procedure.” And he adds that the request for evidence, “the requirement for contribution of how many communications occurred between the presidency of the Government and the National Security Council, means analyzing the action of the Nation Government in matters of national security”, which, as the magistrate understands: “It lacks any causal link with the deaths and injuries produced on October 29”. And he adds that His court «lacks the jurisdiction in order to analyze Sie the President of the Government convened the National Security Council ».
The magistrate maintains later that: “The evidence must focus on the aforementioned causal link between the inactivity of those attributed to the status of investigated, their position of guarantors and deaths.” And he adds that “otherwise we would find ourselves again in a generic analysis, without connection with what happened and that it means radically departing from the legal regulation on civil protection above.” And concludes: “No relationship has with the National Security Council.”
The judge maintains in the fourth point of her legal reasoning that: “the inability to decision -making (lack of experience, lack of knowledge of the situation and the responsibility was delegated in the technicians among other exculpatory elements) cannot assume the repeated search for an alternative regulations to the really explainable.”
In the aforementioned car, the last two paragraphs of the fourth point of the legal reasoning of the magistrate in which it seems to refer to the questions that some of the accusations and the defenses made on Monday the delegate of the Pilar Bernabé government.
Specifically, the judge maintains that: «Nor can the justification of said inability be pretended through repetition in the attribution of responsibilities to those who appear as a witness. Nor “her submission” to what the judge defines as “an orde of questions of an investigated questions, despite a previous judicial pronouncement to the contrary.” “This performance,” says the magistrate, “It is absolutely contrary to any type of procedural guarantee and the rules of good faith that the action of the parties in the criminal process must govern ».
But, above all, the following paragraph draws attention, in which the judge affirms: “In any case, the displacement of responsibility to the central government for the non -declaration of national emergency, is not whether an explicit recognition of the manifest passivity of the autonomous administration.” Administration of which the judge affirms in this order to answer a request for prior diligence: «That he did not know how to alert neither in time or rightly, to the population, with the deadly known result and that would demand, following said exculpatory thesis, that the emergency command will be taken».
