Less than two months before the local elections that will take place on May 28, in some political and journalistic circles there has been speculation about the possibility that the former mayor of Yaiza, Gladys Acuña, may run again as a candidate for the new party (YAS) created in the shadow of Acuña herself and also former councilor and southern businessman, Juan Lorenzo Tavío, after the Supreme Court ruling that confirmed the acquittal of Juan Francisco Rosa and the other defendants in the so-called "Stratus Case".
But this is a sterile debate because the disqualification sentence that Gladis is currently serving does not end until 2034, that is, in 11 years. And because in the past elections of 2019 both the Electoral Board and the Courts of Justice made it clear that her disqualification prevents her from running for any public office, local, island or regional.
So the answer to the question on which some speculate (whether or not Gladis Acuña will be able to run in the next elections on the lists for the Yaiza City Council) is simple: Gladis Acuña will not be able to run in the next local elections because she is prevented from doing so by the 14-year disqualification sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands for having committed a crime of urban planning prevarication by having granted an activity license to the Stratvs winery knowing the illegality of the aforementioned license, and another crime of prevarication by omission, for not having adopted measures to close the facilities. In the same sentence, Juan Lorenzo Tavío was also sentenced to a penalty of 7 years of disqualification and a fine.
Episode repeated 4 years ago.
Four years ago, in the 2019 election campaign, Gladys also starred in a similar episode regarding her candidacy, at that time she was already convicted in the first instance. And there were two theories, the first was that this conviction prevented her from running for any candidacy (city council, island council and parliament). The other theory said that: On the one hand, the sentence was not yet final and had a dissenting particular vote from one of the judges; and on the other hand, it was also said that the conviction would only prevent her from running for the city council (something that the Supreme Court had already rejected in the analogous case of Domingo González Arroyo in Fuerteventura). The truth is that with the particular vote and with the sentence pending confirmation in the Supreme Court, the Electoral Board prevented Acuña from running, starring in a historical ridicule and something that must have meant an indisputable, unnecessary and certainly avoidable personal wear and tear.
In these elections Gladis faces the same situation with different motivations... but the same. According to Acuña, after the ruling issued by the Sixth Section of the Las Palmas Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court that has exonerated Juan Francisco Rosa and others accused of criminal responsibility for the "construction" of the winery, it would "absolve" her of the final conviction (also confirmed by the Supreme Court) that she is serving, opening the possibility of running in the elections. I am very afraid that this is not the case.
The criminal sentence on the construction of the Stratus winery does not say that the construction of the winery is legal, it says that the irregularities committed in its construction do not deserve prison sentences, regardless of whether it can be legalized or not in the future, something that Rosa will care very little about (as examples are the Princesa Yaiza -without a license for decades-, Son Bou -with a demolition order since 2016 issued by Glasi herself- or the KikoLand -with a final eviction order- which are illegal and he continues to exploit them equally).
The fact that a court considers that the construction of the winery is not serious enough to be a crime does not mean that it is legal, nor that Gladis' conviction for the activity license has been annulled, since these are different causes although related to the same winery.
She may -and is within her right- request the revision of her sentence alleging the existence of two sentences on the same fact (legally established reason). But we are not facing the same fact, nor would the processing of the procedure be resolved before the electoral appointment, for which there are less than two months left, since the revision process must be processed before the Supreme Court and the established procedural steps must be followed.
José Francisco Reyes will not leave prison either.
As an example, the case of Mr. Reyes. It should be remembered that all the businessmen who benefited from the crimes were acquitted of all criminal charges. And also that some of the hotels are illegal and cannot be legalized, but they are exploited giving enormous benefits, while he continues to serve prison. Gladis in this case is learning a very hard lesson, as hard as life itself: She is not Juan Francisco Rosa, and her case was not sentenced by the Sixth Section of the Provincial Court, but by the Superior Court of Justice, two aspects that clearly define what happens in this society.
