The judge in the Stratvs case, Silvia Muñoz, has responded forcefully to a letter sent to her last Friday by the president of the Cabildo, Pedro San Ginés, and has reminded him that the Corporation cannot "supervise" the reports made by its technicians at the request of a Court, because it could "imply an intrusion" into their "independence".
The judge even warns that the independence of experts is protected by procedural laws and that even the Penal Code classifies as a crime, in article 464, "attempting to influence directly or indirectly" anyone who is part of a judicial procedure, including the experts.
This response is part of a provision dated November 10, in which the judge agrees to incorporate into the case a technical and legal report carried out by two technicians from the Cabildo, which conclude that Stratvs is illegal and cannot be legalized and make a devastating diagnosis about the privileged treatment received by this winery, owned by Juan Francisco Rosa, in the Special Plan of La Geria.
When submitting these reports to the Court, San Ginés attached a letter in which he clarified that the opinions signed by the technicians Joana Macías and Gustavo Navarro had not been "validated or supervised in depth" due to lack of "material time to do so." He even anticipated that Macías's "exceeded the object of what was requested (by the Court), in addition to the content errors in which it incurs".
"No valuation is admissible"
Three days later, in a provision in which she agreed to incorporate these reports into the case, the judge also responded to San Ginés's letter. "In relation to the excess over the object, it is a matter that is the exclusive competence of this instruction, which does not observe any excess in relation to the agreed expertise", warns Silvia Muñoz, stressing that it is the Court that must determine whether a report conforms to what was requested or not.
Regarding the "supervision" to which San Ginés referred in his letter, the judge is also blunt and clarifies to the president that no "valuation by persons outside" this report or who have not been "designated as experts" within this criminal case is "admissible".
She even warns that "institutional supervision could imply an intrusion into the expert independence that should prevail in any report", and that it is "protected" by "procedural" and criminal laws. And the responsibility for an expert opinion, as the judge clarifies, corresponds "exclusively to the expert who signs the valuations and reasoning contained therein", without third parties being able to influence.
Delivered after the deadline
The two reports requested from the Cabildo were delivered one day after the deadline given by the Court to submit them had expired. In this regard, the president pointed out in his letter that they were not sent earlier because the technician and the lawyer delivered them at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 6, which was the deadline to submit them to the Court. The Cabildo sent them to the judge the following day.
"To inform you that such reports have not been validated or supervised in depth by the Legal Advice of this Corporation, given that there has not been material time to do so", added San Ginés. In addition, he anticipated that "from a first reading by the Legal Services of the Corporation, I am informed that the report signed by Ms. Joana Macías Fernández exceeds the object of what was requested, in addition to the content errors in which it incurs, according to what the Insular Director of Territorial Policy of this Institution tells me".
