The trial for the Jable Case, the only piece remaining to be judged in the Union case, concluded this Wednesday with the reports from the parties, in which the Prosecutor's Office spoke of a long-lasting "corrupt scourge", while the defense of the former mayor of Arrecife, María Isabel Déniz, denounced a "failure" in the evidence.
After several sessions of a trial that comes two decades after the events that several of those involved have confessed to as true, the accusations have maintained that these people allied with the companies Tecmed - later Urbaser - and FCC to illicitly profit at the expense of the Arrecife City Council's coffers.
For the Anti-Corruption prosecutor, Javier Ródenas, there is sufficient incriminating evidence to disprove the presumption of innocence of the accused who remain at the end of the procedure, since he has withdrawn charges between April and September against seven of them.
"There are so many objective corroborations of the acts imputed to them, that the incriminating statements of the co-defendants are not even that important, the reality remains the same," the representative of the Public Ministry defended during his final intervention, anticipating the objections of the defenses of Déniz and the then secretary of the Consistory, Felipe Fernández Camero, who discredited the evidentiary value of the testimonies of the repentant defendants.
Ródenas insisted that the actions of these people have been a "corrupt scourge" that was maintained over time, between 2001 and 2007, and that affects "a sentimental heritage such as the City Council, much more than a building" because "it represents the feelings of the inhabitants of a municipality".
The private prosecution, exercised by the Arrecife City Council, has pointed out, for its part, that it has "no doubt" about the participation of the former mayor of the city in the events being judged, since she has even admitted, something she had not done before, that she received certain gifts.
The lawyer defending the interests of the Consistory, Alfredo Liñán, has delved into the contract for the collection of urban solid waste - signed in 2002 - which was allegedly rigged so that Tecmed would be the beneficiary.
"In the waste collection concession contract, we find, in addition to the rigging, that there is an absolute defect and nullity, because two major works are granted by hand and without any legality to build two warehouses," Liñán recalled, who added that because of that act, the City Council has been "mortgaged for 25 years".
For the popular accusation, exercised by the Association of Urban Transparency (ATU), the present case of corruption has had a "pornographic" character, insofar as "they were immodest, obscene acts, exposed to the sight of all".
Her lawyer, Irma Ferrer, has thanked the work of justice throughout the entire macro-case and has assured that the end of this trial constitutes a "merit of democracy".
In her opinion, no exculpatory evidence has been provided to prove the innocence of those who sat on the bench and has criticized the "frivolity" with which they acted "in contrast to the real damage that is done to public institutions, not only in their credibility, but also to the credibility of justice".
"Inaccuracies and imagination"
For their part, the defenses of the only two defendants who have not recognized the facts, and who therefore request their acquittal, Fernández Camero and Déniz, have described the accusatory account of the Public Ministry as "vague", going so far as to say that their accusation for fraud against the administration - which they included in the last session when modifying their conclusions - was "imaginative".
The lawyer for Fernández Camero, José Antonio Choclán, has pointed out that this new accusation by prosecutor Ródenas "infringes the right of defense", but that, beyond that, it is "vague" because it is not known "what the fraud consists of", nor what relationship it has with respect to his client.
Choclán has asserted that he does not deny the existence of the fact being judged, but that his client has had any type of participation, and has affirmed that the Prosecutor's Office's writing "contains internal contradictions that lead to illogical results", and that the agenda on which the accusation is based "is not an external objective test".
The lawyer for María Isabel Déniz, José María Calero, has cast doubt on the "conformity" between some of the defendants and the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is "an open secret" despite the fact that they have wanted to make them look like "secret" and that "cannot be said", while explaining that this procedure is contrary to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
In addition, he has delved into the fact that the Prosecutor's Office has "omitted" objective data that have been accredited during the plenary because they "spoil the story" and "prefers victory to justice".
Calero has assured that the evidence provided by the prosecutor is a "failure", since "it is unreliable, and the sources are very obscure, very interested, there is no external corroboration", while indicating that, if his client is considered guilty, the undue delays should be applied as highly qualified, and not as simple.
The rest of the defenses showed their agreement with what was requested by the Prosecutor's Office, although some of them have asked that the prison sentences be commuted to fines, if possible.
The trial has been adjourned for sentencing and, with this, more than a decade of judicial investigation for the Union case comes to an end.
