The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has agreed to archive "for lack of evidence" the case against the senator and former president of the Cabildo of Lanzarote Pedro San Ginés for the alleged irregular hiring of the lawyer Ignacio Calatayud in the public companies Insular de Aguas de Lanzarote S.A. (INALSA) and the Water Consortium of Lanzarote. In addition, it has resolved to return it to the Investigating Court number 4 of Arrecife, which is headed by Ricardo Fiestras, so that he can continue investigating the rest of the people.
In the case that is being followed in the Arrecife court, alleged crimes of fraud against the administration, prevarication, influence peddling, misappropriation and professional disloyalty are being investigated.
The Court indicates that "the admission to processing of the case against the person with immunity is not appropriate" and agrees to its filing, while returning it to the investigating court number 4 so that it can continue with the investigation of the facts, regarding the actions of the lawyer Ignacio Calatayud Prats and the rest of the non-immune persons mentioned in the reasoned statement".
In an order notified this Thursday, the Court concludes that there is no "prior legal assessment or evidence of participation of the person with immunity in an allegedly criminal act" on the part of the instructor who sent the reasoned statement.
In addition, it highlights that this legal assessment by the investigating judge is "required" since "it leads to excluding the opening of a criminal process for the investigation of facts of merely suspicious criminal relevance, that is, a prospective investigation, which does not provide, from the instructor's own knowledge, without objective evidence of reality".
The Supreme Court highlights that the investigating judge "neither clarifies nor analyzes" in the reasoned statement sent to the high court "that supposedly irregular hiring".
Thus, it points out that in this case, "as the Public Prosecutor's Office rightly informs, the imputation contained in the reasoned statement must be rejected, since the facts contained in the factual account of the same, as it is written, does not offer any element or principle of evidence, which reasonably supports in reality facts that are likely to be subsumed in a legal process, limiting the instructor to affirm about the existence of the complaints filed and investigations, without any objective support pertaining to the facts themselves".
It should be remembered that the senator has an open case in the Supreme Court, for which he testified last Tuesday, March 16 as investigated before the investigating magistrate of the same, Vicente Magro, for alleged crimes of false testimony and false accusation.
