Judge Rafael Lis, who was removed from the case investigating the Unión car theft, had presented a harsh statement of allegations to avoid his recusal. Among other things, Judge Lis considered his recusal "untimely, unjustified, unjustifiable" and "spurious", which had been requested by César Romero Pamparacuatro, and considered that it was based on "mere suspicions".
"After many years of experience, evidently many more than the recusant, I may be allowed not to understand the reasons that may support an interest in the lawsuit or case," the magistrate argued in his allegations, in which he included numerous disqualifications towards Pamparacuatro (who was the complainant in the case he was investigating). All these allegations, however, were rejected by the Provincial Court.
In fact, as Pamparacuatro argued, the Court decided to remove Judge Lis because it considered that there were doubts about his impartiality in this procedure, as he is the husband of Juan Francisco Rosa's lawyer in the Stratvs case. Specifically, in its resolution, the Court concluded that there is an "indirect interest" and a "reasonable doubt about the prejudices or preventions" that Rafael Lis might have "in relation to one of the parties".
In his statement of allegations, Lis himself acknowledged the link that unites him to Rosa's lawyer, Margarita Alejo Hervás. "It is not a sentimental link, as stated in the recusal (...), but a marital link, under a separation of property regime," the magistrate clarified. Even, among the documents he submitted to the Court to avoid his recusal were the "marriage agreements" signed by the spouses, "to avoid the slightest hint of doubt," Lis said in his statement.
He sold his company to his wife when he returned to the judicial career
In addition, Judge Lis denied having any current relationship with the company Lexislas Global, which is currently in his wife's name, and of which he did acknowledge having been the founder. "It makes no sense to deny it," Judge Lis said. However, he reproached Pamparacuatro for having "ignored" that a few years ago he sold all his shares to Margarita Alejo Hervás, that is, to his wife, when he returned to the judicial career after years working in the private sector (there is legal incompatibility of holding ownership of commercial companies by a judge).
In this regard, it should be recalled that Pamparacuatro stated in his writing that Judge Lis had sold his shares and ceased to be the sole administrator of that company in April 2009, but added that he continued to appear as "general attorney", "with very broad powers", according to the certificate of the Mercantile Registry submitted with the recusal. Regarding this document, Lis argues that it is "incomplete and outdated" information.
Repeated allusions to an article in La Voz
In his allegations, Judge Lis also acknowledged that his wife, Margarita Alejo Hervás, is Rosa's lawyer in the Stratvs case. And for this, the magistrate provided a copy of an article from La Voz de Lanzarote, when this media reported on the change of lawyer of Juan Francisco Rosa in that procedure, in which until then he was represented by Felipe Fernandez Camero.
Throughout his writing, Judge Lis refers on several occasions to that news from La Voz, to affirm that his wife began to be Rosa's lawyer in July 2014 "and not in May", as according to him "she is located in a tortuous and self-interested way in the recusal writing" of Pamparacuatro. It should be recalled that in his recusal, César Romero Pamparacuatro stressed that Margarita Alejo Hervás began to be Rosa's lawyer shortly after the case for the theft of cars fell by distribution in her husband's court.
In addition, Pamparacuatro argued that what derives from the procedure for the theft of cars, may have repercussions both in the Unión case itself, in which Rosa is also charged, and in the Stratvs case, to which diligences and telephone interceptions of Unión have been incorporated. In fact, several defendants whom Lis allowed to appear in the case for the theft of cars (despite having kept it secret until being removed by the Court) had already requested nullities within the Unión case and even tried (unsuccessfully) to suspend the first trial, for the payments to Rodríguez Batllori, based on the fact that this procedure was open.
According to Lis, there is no connection between the cases
"The least that Mr. Pamparacuatro could do, apart from speculations, is to argue in a serious and reasoned manner how he analyzes hypothetical connections between what can be investigated in procedure 654/2014 (for the theft of cars) and what has been done in procedures 697/2008 (Unión case) and 1089/2009 (Stratvs case)," Lis came to propose in his writing, in which he even stated that he was facing an "orchestrated and induced recusal with objectives and purposes that are not at all clear" and even "spurious".
In addition, although the Court has considered proven the link that may exist between the three cases, and therefore the possible "indirect interest" of Judge Lis, he considered that Pamparacuatro had "extrapolated" the link between the cases "by the grace of goodness knows what".
He also claimed not to understand why the judge who initiated the Unión case had an interest in the evolution of that procedure, or in other corruption cases opened in Lanzarote. "The doubt that gnaws at me is to be able to know what is the real interest of Mr. Pamparacuatro," Judge Lis stated in his statement of allegations.
Regarding his wife's client, Juan Francisco Rosa (whom he allowed to appear in the car theft case), the judge claimed to be unaware of "what his procedural situation is, or was" in the Unión case, "nor to what extent what is done" in the procedure he was instructing "may have repercussions on what happens in the others".
Lis's recusal, agreed by the Provincial Court, had also been supported by the Public Prosecutor's Office. In defense of the judge's impartiality, four defendants from Unión, Juan Francisco Rosa, Felipe Fernández Camero, Dimas Martín and Luis Lleó came out, who also presented allegations asking that the recusal not be accepted.
