The mayor of La Nucía, Bernabé Cano, attended the morning of Reyes to the nursing home where the covid vaccine was to be administered, and in which he was vaccinated without having been summoned to do so, “because it is an implicit social obligation of a politician, perfectly dressed to avoid being infected, having announced Public Health to the councilor of Health the beginning of the vaccination (…) and, once the existence of excess doses was known. And they administered the first one “at the initiative of the mayor himself, who was the one who requested it given the condition of doctor of the councilor, there being no obstacle or impediment on the part of the person responsible for the vaccination process.”
Cano came to the residence because of his duties as mayor, at the implicit invitation of Public Health and because (the vaccination) had become something of note in the media.
These are part of the allegations included in the appeal that the PP provincial deputy has also presented against his prosecution for the crimes of bribery and prevarication. The magistrate of La Vila Consuelo María Martínez has seen signs of criminality in the actions of the popular politician, who on January 6, at the start of the vaccination campaign, He appeared at the residence whose access was forbidden to anyone outside the residence and was vaccinated without corresponding when not even all the users or the social health personnel of the center had done it yet. Something that his defense, the lawyer Agustín Ribera, considers “irrelevant (…) as there are excess doses.”
The lawyer Denounces as “arbitrary” the account of the prosecutor Pablo Romero on which the instructor relies to conclude that Cano has to be tried for these events. And he insists on the presence at all times of the person responsible for the vaccination process (of which he provides photographs) as proof that he authorized the mayor’s immunization, which the Public Health official denies. He was not even aware of it until the end of the morning, when Cano had already left, he declared before his lordship.
The vaccination was carried out with excess doses, without their request, authorized by Public Health and with the acquiescence of the personnel who were present.
It also includes the appeal for reform (which must be resolved by the magistrate herself after what remains the option of appealing to the Court) that “No one can deny” that the communication by Public Health to the mayor of Health that the morning of January 6 was going to proceed to the vaccination in that residence “is nothing more than an explicit invitation” to attend it.
Throughout the writing, it is repeatedly emphasized prior knowledge that there were going to be excess doses, a fact alluded to in their statements by both the residence doctor and the mayor himself. And it is justified that, despite this, other people from the profile of the group that were being immunized at that time (elderly or health care workers) were not sought “because nothing had been achieved since the health center, being a holiday, only enjoyed a minimum service of professionals for emergencies who would not have been able to leave their job (…) so they acted with professionalism avoiding that those excess doses could be wasted ”.
The entire process was made public, openly and in the presence of all the people who were in the place
Leaving the door open to “invincible error”, a criminal figure that entails the exclusion of criminal responsibility, Cano’s defense maintains that he did not ask to be vaccinated but that, when the mayor of Health did so on his behalf, he accepted it “convinced that he was doing well as a consequence of the risk of contagion that he carries when acting as a (sports) doctor, even only in official matches, since when his obligations as a deputy allowed him to, he would attend personalized appointments at the stadium to the players who requested his attention, and that despite risk involved in such an action», Picks up the letter. The judge does not deny the politician’s status as a doctor, although she considers it “irrelevant in this analysis.”
The lawyer also refutes the mayor’s ascendant on the residence to which the judge and the prosecutor allude to having a municipal concession, and specifies that she was the person in charge of Public Health «and not the City Council, the residence, the mayor or the councilor who could authorize to disallow any question related to vaccination “.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.