The defense of the former justice and internal Salome Pradasinvestigated for the management of the DANA of October 29 who left 228 fatal victims in the province of Valencia, has expanded the complaint that presented last May before the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) for the instruction carried out by the Judge of the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 3 of Catarrojain order to withdraw the judge investigating the Dana.
Pradas, represented by the office Kepler-Karst Law Firmrequests for “reasons of prudence and given the seriousness of the facts that are suspended to the magistrate of continuing with the instruction,” the defense has reported in a statement.
They also add the denial of the full and literal transcription of the statement made on April 11. Likewise, it states that, after having requested the grouping of the nearly 40 existing accusations in the case, with the objective of “speeding up” the procedure, the instructor has enabled a “non -existent” period in the instruction phase so that popular and individual accusations express the indications of criminal responsibility that they consider against PRADAS and the other investigated, the former regional secretary Emilio Argueso.
“An early guilt judgment”
In his opinion, this action can entail “an early judgment of improper guilt of the instructional phase.” In this regard, it emphasizes that a period of 15 days had already been granted to the parties to pronounce on the requested group.
This extension of the Complaint adds to the facts previously communicated to the CGPJ on May 14, 2025 and that the Pradas defense understands that they affect the procedural guarantees and the right of defense of the ex -consellera.
In that first letter, he pointed out that the right of defense of his client was “severely affected” by the way in which the instruction by the magistrate is being conduct, with “irregularities” that, in his opinion, “violate fundamental rights of the parties and call into question the equity of the procedure.”
Among the reasons for the complaint, the defense of PRADAS He cited at that time the “existence of judicial resolutions that contain categorical statements without sufficient probative basis”; predetermination of the object of instruction; “repeated” denial of proceedings requested by the parties; “Limitation” of the right of defense during the statements and the possible intervention of people “alien” to the judicial procedure.
Subscribe to continue reading
