"The land was not suitable", "the Island Plan prohibited it", "it is a building that is not allowed" and "the works are not legalizable". These have been some of the forceful phrases of the three experts from the Island Plan Office of the Cabildo who testified this Thursday in the Stratvs case trial, and who agreed that the works should never have been authorized by the Government of the Canary Islands, which has three defendants in the dock for these events. "They should have denied it, because it was not allowed," said the lawyer Joana Macías, who questioned that with that authorization granted by the regional Executive, a "specific case was exonerated from complying with the rule that we all have".
For her part, the technical architect Amada Fontes has insisted that the type of land did not allow that activity, and also that the Island Plan "prohibited any work that involves earth movement". Precisely about "what is an earth movement" have revolved much of the questions asked by the defenses, which insist on maintaining that the construction of Stratvs did not involve that movement, comparing it for example with activities that are allowed, such as the installation of socos or the works typical of the maintenance of the land for the cultivation of the vine.
"Making a soco an earth movement?", exclaimed with surprise one of the experts when listening to the lawyer of Juan Francisco Rosa. "They are different things!", Amada Fontes specified, who has also been in charge of explaining that movements of up to 20 centimeters are allowed in the agriculture regulations, "for the refreshment of the land, a normal movement for the refreshment of the vine". "A soco is not a work", replied Joana Macías, who has read several times the article of the PIOT that prohibits any "work" that involves earth movement in La Geria. "It is not an interpretation, I am going to read it literally", the lawyer of Rosa replied when he insisted on the same topic.
The experts conclude that the winery is not even underground
The same questions from the defense have also been faced by the technical architect Gustavo Navarro, who has clarified that a work like the one of Stratvs cannot be compared, for example, with the intervention to bury a wiring. "There is an earth movement, but the soil remains the same, and here the soil did not remain the same", he pointed out. In fact, when asked by the popular accusation, he has affirmed that even if the businessman had adjusted to the authorization he received from the Canarian Government, which only allowed the construction of an underground winery-warehouse of 900 meters, he would have had to carry out an excavation of 3,600 cubic meters. But in this case, only the winery tripled what was authorized, and the whole complex occupies according to the expert reports more than 12,000 square meters.
On the other hand, both Gustavo Navarro and Amada Fontes have also agreed that that winery is not even underground. "The project that was presented to me was not totally underground", Fontes pointed out, in reference to a report that she had to issue in 2005. In fact, she specified that only that already made the work not authorized. And it is that apart from the debate raised by the defenses about whether or not there was earth movement, the Island Plan also expressly prohibits any new aerial construction in that area of La Geria.
For his part, Gustavo Navarro has gone further, directly affirming that the winery "is not underground". According to the expert, what Rosa did was to use the unevenness of the ravine and then cover it, thus altering the slope. "A layer of picón was put on top. It protrudes nine meters above the resulting slope", he detailed.
"To be able to declassify a protected space you have to do it by law"
In addition, the three experts have unanimously refuted other theses of the defenses, which in the trial are trying to maintain among other things that La Geria is not a protected space. In this regard, what they propose is that after its declaration as a natural space in 1994, a Natural Resources Management Plan (PORN) should have been approved, and that by not having done so, that declaration lost its validity and therefore the protection of this space decayed. "No", the lawyer Joana Macías has responded emphatically, who has explained that what was done in 1994 was to "reclassify it", going from natural park to protected landscape. "If it is reclassified it is because it was already classified before", she has emphasized, explaining that that made it unnecessary to approve a PORN, since these instruments are also to order "protected parks", which is not the case of La Geria.
In addition, she has added that "to be able to declassify a protected natural space, you have to do it by law. Or by a sentence", and has stressed that that "could only be done by the Constitutional Court, declaring unconstitutional the law that declared it". For that reason, she has defended the full validity of that protection as a natural space, and to that she has added two other levels of protection with which the land where Stratvs was built has, being rustic land and also a landscape area, with the category of singular landscape.
Regarding the possibility of granting authorizations in an exceptional way, which is what Rosa's defense and that of the three members of the Government of the Canary Islands accused in the case are also clinging to, both Joana Macías and Gustavo Navarro have stressed that to open that procedure the public interest of the work has to be declared and not be "discrepant with the planning". And they have insisted that neither of the two conditions were met in this case. In addition, Macías has stressed that if they had opted for that procedure to grant the authorization, they would have had to request sectoral reports and also have submitted the project to public information, which was not done either.
The experts hired by Rosa have "another legal criterion"
Regarding what was required by the declaration of La Geria as a natural space, Macías has specified that a Special Plan was necessary, which was approved by the Government of the Canary Islands but was annulled by the Courts, and has explained that while that document does not exist, the space continues to be governed by the Island Plan. However, despite the final judgment that declared the Special Plan of La Geria illegal, Rosa's defense has continued this Thursday insisting on defending the validity of the document, with which he maintains that the winery was "legalized".
"You interpret that the Special Plan of La Geria is expelled from the legal system, but it is your opinion. On that there is another legal criterion that says that it does not lose its effectiveness", Rosa's lawyer, José Antonio Choclán Montalvo, has affirmed, despite the fact that another Supreme Court ruling recently ratified that that Plan has already been annulled in a firm manner for years. In any case, both Gustavo Navarro and Joana Macías have agreed that not even that Plan of La Geria would have allowed to legalize Stratvs, as they stated in the expert reports that they made in their day at the request of the Court.
"You are going to hear other opinions", Choclán has affirmed, in reference to the expert witnesses who will also testify in the trial, hired by Juan Francisco Rosa. And he has also referred to them on other occasions in which he has tried to refute the official experts. "I am not an expert, but there will be experts who will illustrate us better", the lawyer has also pointed out when he was questioning Gustavo Navarro's criterion on the power of the Island Plan to regulate La Geria.
The defense appeals to regulations not applicable to the case
"I do not invoke anything, my report is based on the use of the land", "the norm that you cite does not influence my report" and "that article is not applicable to the Autonomous Community" have been other of the answers that the experts have had to give, in this case to the lawyer of the three accused of the Government of the Canary Islands, who in turn is head of the legal services of the regional Executive. And it is that once again, this lawyer has put on the table different regulations that according to the experts are not applicable to the land where Stratvs was built.
This has motivated that the lawyer of the prosecution interrupted the declaration on several occasions, especially during the interrogation to Gustavo Navarro, who is also not a lawyer but a technician. "He is asking legal and also generic questions", the lawyer has questioned. "He asks what would be authorized according to which laws, without taking into account the type of land", he has warned again at another moment.
Later, the scene has been repeated during the declaration of Joana Macías, although in this case the expert has explained in detail why each norm that the lawyer cited was not applicable to the case, while this lawyer was the one who tried to interrupt her answers. "Do not worry about the expert, she defends herself very well", the president of the Chamber, Emilio Moya, has pointed out, when the lawyer of the prosecution has returned to question the questions that were being formulated.
"The natural resources have been destroyed"
"The natural resources have not only been affected, they have been destroyed", Macías has also pointed out when asked by the Public Prosecutor, explaining that the works not only affected the landscape and the soil, but also the subsoil. In addition, he has emphasized the damage caused by the extraction of rofe, which he has defined as the "black gold" of La Geria.
Regarding the subsoil, he has also referred to the water resources of the area, stressing that it was a ravine between two mountains, which formed a natural water network due to the permeable soil of the area, which allows to accumulate the water from the rains and even from the mist. On this point, after being questioned by the lawyer of the former manager of the Island Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín, Macías has clarified that what he collected in his report is based on the memory of the Plan de La Geria itself.
The importance of this point lies in another of the crimes that are being judged in this case, for the emission of polluting discharges that could have affected the possible underground waters. In this regard, it should be remembered that among the experts who still have to testify in the trial is the engineer Carlos Soler, who prepared a report commissioned by the previous Podemos group in the Cabildo on the existence of an aquifer under Timanfaya, and then conducted a study for the Water Consortium to complete that opinion, which includes the detail of the sources and springs in the entire area, concluding that they are also present in the Barranco del Obispo where Stratvs was built.
Another witness and an expert who did not get to testify
During the session of this Thursday an agent who processed one of the complaints against Stratvs in 2008 has also testified. According to what he has related, when carrying out an inspection they found several constructions, as well as different walls and parking pavement that did not have any authorization.
Regarding the other expert who was summoned this Thursday, Esteban Armas Matallana, he has finally not come to testify. Armas Matallana had been summoned for a report he made as a technician of the Cabildo on another winery -which the defense tries to compare with the case of Stratvs-, but before beginning his statement the president of the Chamber has reminded him that he could not do it, being the brother of one of the accused, the architect Miguel Ángel Armas Matallana.
Initially, the technician has shown his willingness to respond to everything that had to do with his report, although before the possibility that he would be asked questions related to his brother, he has finally availed himself of the right that the magistrate has reminded him that assisted him.
