Le procureur au juge Peinado: "Les mesures de précaution contre Begoña Gómez sont injustifiées, disproportionnées et inutiles"

The Spanish prosecutor, José Manuel San Baldomero, has expressed concerns over the precautionary measures imposed by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado against Begoña Gómez and her assistant, Cristina Álvarez, both linked to the Spanish government’s office in La Moncloa. In an official report submitted to the Madrid Provincial Court, the prosecutor criticized the judge's decision to revoke their passports and require them to appear before the court every two weeks, calling these measures "unjustified, disproportionate, and unnecessary." The report, obtained by elDiario.es, highlights the lack of rigorous analysis behind the judge’s ruling and questions the legal basis for such restrictions. According to the prosecutor’s account, Judge Peinado’s justification for the measures was based on a perceived risk of flight, which he attributed solely to the nature of the alleged crimes and the penalties they could face. However, the prosecutor argues that this reasoning fails to consider the individual circumstances of the accused. Both women are Spanish citizens with family ties within Spain, and they have carried out their professional duties entirely within the country. The report emphasizes that there is no evidence suggesting either woman has assets or connections abroad that would facilitate escape, nor is there any indication of potential hiding places outside Spain. The prosecutor further criticizes the judge’s reliance on comparisons with other cases, including references to past instances of corruption involving Italian political figures and members of Spain’s security forces. These examples, according to the report, are considered exceptional and not relevant to the current case. The prosecutor points out that while it is impossible to predict future events, the judge’s approach appears to prioritize hypothetical scenarios over objective assessments of actual risks. This, the report suggests, undermines the principle of balancing individual freedoms with the need for judicial oversight. In addition, the prosecutor notes that the judge’s reference to the alleged acquisition of Dominican nationality by Begoña Gómez is based on information that has been repeatedly dismissed as false. The report states that thorough financial investigations conducted under judicial authority have found no substantiation for such claims. The prosecutor implies that the judge’s continued reliance on this misinformation reflects a broader pattern of using speculative or unfounded arguments to justify restrictive measures. Regarding the requirement for regular appearances before the court, the prosecutor argues that this measure lacks practical purpose beyond serving as a form of public exposure or additional penalty. The report stresses that such measures should be applied only when there is a clear and justified reason, rather than as a routine administrative action. The prosecutor also pointed out that the reference to the former Italian leader Bettino Craxi fleeing to Tunisia in the 1990s was previously raised by another party during a prior hearing. Now, the prosecutor says, the judge seems to be reusing this example in an attempt to bolster his argument, despite its relevance being questionable in the context of the current case. This, the report suggests, raises concerns about the judge’s adherence to established legal principles and the consistency of his reasoning. As the case continues, the prosecutor’s critique underscores ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the prosecution regarding the appropriate application of precautionary measures. The situation remains under review, with the Madrid Provincial Court yet to respond directly to the allegations raised in the report.