The historical leader of the PIL, Dimas Martín, faces a new request for two years in prison within the Unión case, this time for a crime against land management. The Prosecutor's Office has already filed the indictment of another part of this macro-case, focused in this case on the illegal works carried out on a rustic property of Dimas in Los Rostros, in a protected natural space.
In addition to two years in prison, the prosecutor Ignacio Stampa is asking for a fine of 12,000 euros, "with substitute arrest in case of non-payment", and two years of "special disqualification for the exercise of any profession related to construction, extraction or earthmoving". Likewise, he asks that Dimas Martín be sentenced to pay for the works to "restore the disturbed legal order". And it is that he maintains that Dimas carried out works on a protected land where it was not possible to build, doubling the surface of a small pre-existing building and creating other annexes, including a pool.
The events date back to 2009, when, according to the Prosecutor's Office, Dimas Martín "promoted, with total disregard for the legal planning of the territory, works to transform the land without the mandatory qualifying titles." In fact, not only did he not have a license, but he could not have obtained it either, according to the prosecutor, because it was rustic land for natural protection, also within an area of ecological value (badlands), where only "uses and activities compatible with the purpose of protection and those necessary for the conservation and public enjoyment of its natural values" are allowed.
However, the works promoted by Dimas Martín "with full knowledge and control of its financing and its contravention with current urban planning", consisted of the construction of a swimming pool of about 30 square meters, the expansion of three rooms for residential use of approximately 90 square meters, a paved access terrace of about 25 square meters and the walling of part of the farm.
"He used his wife as a shield"
In his writing, the prosecutor emphasizes that Dimas Martín "made his wife appear as the promoter" of the works, Elena del Rosario Martín, but really "all the steps related to the execution and supervision of the works and the hiring of workers for it were carried out by the accused." In fact, the farm is registered in his name.
Therefore, although Dimas's wife was initially charged in this piece, the charges against her were finally dropped at the request of the Prosecutor's Office itself. According to the indictment, the historical leader of the PIL "used his spouse as a shield", "in order to hide his true responsibility in the promotion of the works" and "evade the responsibilities that could be generated by the activity carried out against the rules of land management."
In the sanctioning file initiated at the time by the Yaiza City Council, after agents of the Seprona filed a complaint, Elena Martín was listed as the promoter of the works. However, the Prosecutor's Office considers that "the defendant's wife acted in ignorance, since she never had knowledge of what was actually executed by her husband and of the real intentions of using her as a shield against further demands for responsibilities for the execution of the works."
Pedro de Armas, the complainant
The works that Dimas was carrying out in Los Rostros were reported in 2009 to the Seprona by Pedro de Armas and, with this, this alleged crime ended up being investigated within the Unión case. And it is that the subsequent telephone calls that Dimas Martín exchanged; the mayor of Yaiza, Gladys Acuña; and the mayor of Tinajo and then island president of CC, Jesús Machín, after learning of that complaint, put the UCO agents on the trail of this new illegality, since the historical leader of the PIL had his phone tapped at that time.
Although De Armas expressly requested that his name not appear when going to the Seprona, an agent of this Unit of the Civil Guard confirmed in the Court, within the framework of this case, that it was the current councilor of the PNL-Nueva Canarias in Arrecife who filed the complaint
Precisely because of the conversations intercepted by the UCO, in this piece the mayor of Yaiza, the then deputy mayor, Leonardo Rodríguez, and Jesús Machín were also charged, for a possible crime of influence peddling. However, the charges against them were finally dismissed.
Dimas "tried to influence the mayor"
In the case of Gladys Acuña, in the order in which she agreed to her "uncharging", the judge pointed out that in the conversations "it seems" that Dimas Martín "tries to influence the mayor so that, although there is no other choice but to initiate a procedure, it suffers from some defect in order to finish the works" in his family home.
However, although that order emphasizes that "it seems that, in effect, Mrs. Acuña, far from being offended, admits Mr. Martín's suggestions", the "objective" facts are related by the Public Prosecutor in a report, in which he states that the mayor, Dimas Martín's party colleague, "paralyzes the works for him" and does so "the day after the Technical Office proposes said measure". Thus, although the works were not sealed off, it is also "not proven that they continued to be executed afterwards" nor have consequences of the alleged "defects in the resolution" issued by Acuña been detected.
In the same line, as requested by the Prosecutor's Office in its day, the judge had also dismissed the charges against Jesús Machín and Leonardo Rodríguez, who at that time governed with the PIL in Yaiza. Based on that agreement, Dimas made a call to Machín asking him to intervene and mediate with his party colleague so that the City Council would not paralyze the works. However, beyond these conversations, the prosecutor and the investigating judge consider that the participation of either of the two has not been proven.
As for the other person who was charged in the case, the head of the Technical Office, Antonio Lorenzo, the judge did consider that there were "indications of the commission of a crime of documentary falsification committed on September 20, 2006" in relation to that home, but this would have prescribed, so "liability" was declared "extinguished".
