Dimas Martín has been sentenced to two more years in prison for the illegal works he carried out in the Los Rostros area. The ruling, which is already the fifth conviction in the Unión case, considers it proven that he committed a crime against land management by building a three-room building with an area of about 90 square meters, a 30 square meter pool, a wall and a paved terrace in a protected natural park.
The ruling, issued by the head of the Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife, Margarita Gómez, also imposes a fine of 12,000 euros, as well as two years of special disqualification from exercising any profession related to construction, extraction or earthmoving.
In addition, the "restoration of the disturbed legal order" is also ordered, which implies the demolition of what was illegally built, which must be paid for by Dimas Martín. "Things must be returned to the same state they were in before the criminal conduct was perpetrated, after the balance of the specially protected land has been significantly modified," the ruling states. To this end, in the sentence execution phase, a plan must be presented "for this purpose by the Environmental Services of the Government of the Canary Islands", the execution of which will be the responsibility of the accused, who has also been ordered to pay the costs generated by this judicial procedure.
They were the ones who "directed the works" and "knew of its illegal nature"
"All the procedures related to the execution, supervision of the works and the hiring of workers for this were carried out by the accused, Dimas Martín, despite his wife appearing as the owner," the ruling states in the proven facts.
In this regard, it refers, among other things, to the telephone conversations intercepted by the UCO and heard during the trial, which "show that the accused directed the works, that he knew from the beginning of its illegal nature, in addition to trying to hide his identity, instructing the workers on the site to say that Lemes was doing the work." To this, he adds that "through this last one", Dimas "tried to ensure that only the construction of a wall was reported and not the other constructions he was carrying out."
In those conversations, it is heard how the historical leader of the PIL asks Samuel Lemes to speak with "those from Seprona", with whom he "has a friendship". "You tell him to report the stone walls, damn it, and if he wants the pool," he indicated in another call, trying to ensure that the report did not reflect all the works that were being carried out. The agent himself who made that report testified during the trial and confirmed that "several people", including Lemes, called him on those dates to try to influence his actions, although he made it clear that they did not succeed. "I did my job," he declared.
Illegal and unlegalizable works
The ruling emphasizes that the land on which these works were carried out is classified as rustic with natural protection, within the areas of ecological value, as confirmed by all the experts and witnesses during the trial, so "only uses and activities are possible with the purpose of protection and those necessary for the conservation and public enjoyment of its natural values."
Therefore, it concludes that the works carried out were not only illegal because they were carried out without a license or territorial qualification, but would also be unlegalizable today. "They are not subject to legalization," the magistrate concludes. Thus, he imposes the penalty requested by the Public Prosecutor, without applying the undue delays that the defense had claimed during the trial as a mitigating factor.
In this regard, the ruling indicates that the "calculation of the deadlines" should not begin at the beginning of the processing of the Unión case, in 2009, but from the moment he was charged in this specific piece, which occurred in July 2014. "And taking into account that initially there were up to five people charged, and a large number of procedures were carried out, including the issuance of expert reports, it is not considered that there were delays, but that the case was processed quite quickly."
In addition, as stated by the prosecutor, Javier Ródenas, in his final conclusions during the trial, the judge considers that "the silence of the accused", who availed himself of his right not to testify, should be "valued" in the procedure, "given the accumulation of incriminating evidence that demands an explanation on his part."
