The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal filed by the representation of the former mayor of Yaiza and current advisor to the Cabildo de Lanzarote, Gladys Acuña, who intended to have the sentence that condemned her definitively to fourteen years of disqualification for granting the activity license to the Stratvs winery of businessman Juan Francisco Rosa and for "her passivity" when not closing the facilities despite having detected irregularities reviewed. This was advanced by the digital newspaper Canarias Ahora and has been confirmed by La Voz.
Acuña was convicted of a crime against land planning and another of prevarication and resigned as mayor of the southern municipality due to this judicial ruling. However, she has not completely distanced herself from politics, since 2023 she has been head of cabinet of the president of the Cabildo de Lanzarote, Oswaldo Betancort (CC).
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has rejected the "extraordinary appeal for review", a mechanism that allows appealing firm acts on the understanding that a "mistake has been made" in the resolution. This appeal was filed on behalf of the former mayor of Yaiza and former councilor Juan Lorenzo Tavío against the aforementioned judgment of October 11, 2017 that condemned them.
Both argued that the separation of the judicial procedure, which judged the irregularities committed in the construction of the Stratvs Winery, "harmed them".
At that time, the legality of the building permit was judged separately, judged by the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court, and where the businessman Juan Francisco Rosa and the rest of the defendants were acquitted: and, on the other hand, the activity license that was judged by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands and where Acuña, several former councilors, former mayor José Francisco Reyes, a technician and the secretary were convicted for granting the activity license to the winery "knowing its activity".
Likewise, the Chamber has indicated that "the applicants themselves recognize that the judgment that is invoked", issued by the Provincial Court, to justify the extraordinary review appeal "fell in a procedure in which they were not a party", although "both refer to the same winery".
The Supreme Court has indicated that in the criminal field, "each criminal case has its own object and its own evidence" and thus "it must be resolved". Thus, it has recalled that this appeal "is not compatible with the possibility of constantly reopening the evidentiary debate in criminal cases".
