The defense of the PP in the case that is being followed by the papers of Luis Bárcenas has presented a brief in the National Court in which it demands that Judge Santiago Pedraz definitively exonerate the formation, in light of the null credibility of the ex-treasurer, of the reports that undermine the veracity of its alleged off-the-books accounting and of the eleven years that have passed “without evidence.”
The brief, to which ABC had access, is recorded in connection with the closing of the investigation of this piece detached from the Gürtel case. Last July Pedraz, head of the Central Court of Instruction number 5 of the National Court, agreed that there was no place to extend the instruction any longer, but it has not yet decided if the end will come by dismissal or will continue the process on the way to trial.
For the PP, “there is an absence of evidence of criminality in the events that have been the subject of investigation for almost 11 years” in this case and that focus on clarifying if the donations that Bárcenas registered in his papers on behalf of various businessmen they had their translation in public works awards in administrations governed by the ‘popular’.
«None of the Reports prepared by the experts of the General State Intervention (IGAE) that work together with these actions reveal the existence of no criminally reprehensible irregularity in the award of the analyzed contracts “, says the letter, which considers” evident the absence of any link between the analyzed awards and the presumed donations “.
Regarding Bárcenas’ own statements, the last one on July 16, the PP defense points out that “in addition to not having thrown any relevant information for the course of this investigation, it has once again highlighted the lack of credibility that their papers and their multiple and contradictory versions deserve ».
«There is a clear lack of objective facts, testimonies and / or objective documentary evidence that give credibility to the story that Mr. Bárcenas claims in relation to his notes and, especially, to those related to the presumed donations that are reflected in his papers that are being investigated in these proceedings, “he argues .
On the contrary, he points out the existence of “objective elements” that question his credibility “and his spurious intentions towards the people who, without any justification, have been involved in his famous roles”, as already collected by various judicial decisions that reduced the veracity of as stated by the former treasurer. They add the fact that none of the witnesses cited in the case has acknowledged what appears from their papers.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism