There is nothing to clarify. This is what the defenses of the accused in the case of the General Plan of Alicante have transferred to the request for clarifications raised by the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in the sentence that exonerated the businessman Enrique Ortiz and the former mayors of Alicante Sonia Castedo and Luis Díaz Alperi of alleged rigging in the urban planning of the city. The ruling only imposed fines for bribery on Ortiz and Alperi. The first for the gift of a jacket from Carolina Herrera to Castedo and the second for a private jet trip to Cuenca. The Public Ministry had asked the court for a battery of clarifications because it considered that the resolution omitted data that it considered essential to substantiate the appeal to the Supreme Court. The cassation before the High Court is at the expense of what the court answers.
“The proven facts of the sentence are clear and final,” says Ortiz’s lawyer, Francisco Ruiz Marco, in the brief presented to the Court, adding that “it does not require any supplement. It is enough to read it in its entirety ». Along the same lines, Alperi’s lawyer, Vicente Grima, claims that “the court is not obliged to make an express pronouncement on each and every one of the extremes of its conclusion brief, of more than 400 pages, but only to do so regarding the relevant facts, “and the acquittal, in their opinion, has already been pronounced on all the crimes charged against the accused.
For his part, Ignacio Gally, Castedo’s lawyer, maintains that “what actually underlies this request for clarification is a claim by the Prosecutor’s Office to modify the sentence in accordance with his arguments.” “The request is still surprising and original, but lacking any legal basis,” he adds.
Another of the lawyers who asks the court to reject the clarifications requested by the prosecutor is Bernardo del Rosal, who defends the lawyers of the Salvetti law firm (Javier Gutiérrez and José Luis Castedo) considering that his indictment was “Confusing, artificial and unnecessarily extensive and inconcrete”. The lawyer adds that “the court has impeccably collected the facts that it has considered proven, justifying why it does not consider them to constitute a crime.”
The Public Ministry also reproached the court that the resolution said nothing about the agreement signed with the accusations by Enrique Ortiz in which pleaded guilty to the crimes and from which he later retracted at the beginning of the trial. The magistrates allowed the promoter to renounce the agreement, but this incident does not appear in the court resolution.
An extreme on which Ruiz Marco understands that it is not appropriate to clarify anything either. Ortiz’s lawyer points out that said agreement did not meet the validity requirements regulated in the Criminal Procedure Law. “There was no legal conformity”, he emphasizes. Castedo’s lawyer uses similar arguments, stressing that “the sentence cannot include something that has not been legally produced.” For Vicente Grima, this claim does not apply either, because “the Chamber made an oral statement during the processing of preliminary questions. The law does not require that the resolutions on such matters be written or that they must be incorporated into the sentence.
Trip to crete
The Prosecutor’s Office also asked for explanations of why the court had not deduced testimony from businessman Ricardo Fuster if they considered that he lied. The sentence cast doubt on this witness, stressing that he managed to evade his accusation to the link Ortiz with the payment of the trip to Creta de Alperi. Ruiz Marco also rejects that the court has to clarify anything because “none of the parties requested the deduction of testimony” and that nothing prevents any of them from making a complaint to the employer, so “reproach the court is unnecessary.”
Since the Public Ministry had submitted in the month of August a letter to claim the drafting of a new ruling adding all the clarifications requested, the court had summoned all the parties to pronounce themselves.
The deadline for responding to requests for clarification from the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office officially ends at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. All submitted briefs will be forwarded to the court for a decision.
Once all these requests are settled The deadlines to appeal to the Supreme Court will begin to run. An end on which the defense of Alperi has already ruled formally when advancing that it will appeal the fine sentence for the trip to Crete. Prosecutors for their part are already preparing theirs.
EU supports the room to include all omissions
Esquerra Unida, which exercises popular action in the case of the PGOU, has asked the court that issued the sentence to draft a new ruling that includes all the omissions claimed by the Prosecutor’s Office. The lawyer José Luis Romero assures that these absences can generate a “manifest defenselessness of the accusing party” because the Supreme Court could not pronounce on extremes that do not appear in the sentence. The US also considers that Ortiz’s compliance “was made with all guarantees” and the ruling must explain why he was allowed to renounce it.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.