The sixth section of the Provincial Court has lifted the precautionary measure of closure and prohibition of activity of the Stratus winery, owned by businessman Juan Francisco Rosa. In the order, notified this Monday and whose rapporteur is the magistrate Salvador Alba, the chamber upholds the request to lift the precautionary measure issued on December 20, 2013 by the Court of Instruction number 5 of Arrecife. Rosa and the company BTL Lanzarote SL presented a document requesting that the precautionary measure be lifted, which, in addition to the total closure of Stratvs, included the suspension of any type of activity for a maximum period of five years.
The judicial resolution explains that the substantive issue is not being assessed, but solely and exclusively the maintenance or not of the precautionary measure. The rest will be the subject of the oral trial "of imminent celebration."
Among the legal arguments put forward in the order, it is pointed out that "the precautionary measure was agreed upon three years ago, an excessive time for any precautionary measure, even the most onerous, such as provisional imprisonment." In this sense, it is argued that "the damage that may be caused to the owner of the activity, when at the moment he is assisted by the sacred principle of presumption of innocence, the instruction has already concluded, must be valued in its fair terms." The Chamber reiterates that a precautionary measure "of the scope of that agreed in 2013 cannot be maintained over time indefinitely".
Reports provided by Rosa
Likewise, the documents provided by Rosa requesting that the closure and prohibition of activity measure be lifted are taken into consideration. "We must assess the new reports provided by the applicant as the indications provided by the prosecution and assessed by the investigating judge were assessed in their day, that is, as possible legality of the purification system, the recent analyses of soil samples and the possible non-existence of a water network in La Geria", it is indicated in this line. "All this, without prejudice to the assessment that will be made in due course of all the evidence that is practiced in the oral trial", it is added.
Another aspect on which the legal arguments focus is that, having concluded the instruction phase and already being in the oral trial phase, the lifting of the precautionary measure "would not alter the instruction, would harm or make disappear indications or evidence necessary for the trial". In the same line, it indicates that, at the time, it was agreed to maintain the precautionary measure "because the instruction had not concluded and it was impossible or difficult for the Court to know the duration of the instruction phase, so the alleged damage that could be caused by the lifting of the precautionary measure was weighed".
