Judge summons six witnesses in Begoña Gómez case, defying prosecutors

Judge summons six witnesses in Begoña Gómez case, defying prosecutors

Can an investigating judge continue to pull on a thread when the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Civil Guard tell him there is no crime? That is, in essence, what has peine in the case peine against Begoña Gómez, according to the Al Rojo Vivo tweet that starts the conversation: the magistrate has decided to summon six witnesses to testify, departing from the criteria of the Ministry of Justice (Public Prosecutor) and the Central Operational Unit (UCO). The news, summarized in one line, has sparked a discussion that goes far beyond the specific case and touches the entire architecture of the Spanish judicial system.

What the judge decided and why he is accused of ignoring the prosecutors

The starting point is simple to state and complicated to digest: an investigating judge has accepted a case, ordered investigative measures, and now calls half a dozen witnesses to testify. The Public Prosecutor's Office and the UCO, according to the headline being shared, do not share that roadmap. For some participants, this is not an anomaly but the basics of the job: the investigating judge investigates, and police reports and the prosecutor's opinions are exactly that—reports and opinions. The decision, ultimately, belongs to the judge.

Some go further and argue that the UCO cannot rule on the existence or non-existence of a crime, because that is not their responsibility. Their function is to provide reports on what the judge orders them to investigate. The investigating judge, however, must decide whether the matter goes to trial. Confusing both levels—the police investigation and the judicial decision—is, according to this analysis, the root of the media noise.

UCO reports, court orders, and the debate over suspect status

The second front is more technical and convoluted. Is Begoña Gómez a suspect or not? The Public Prosecutor's Office, as reported, maintains that acquiring this procedural status requires a specific court order from the judge notifying the person. And that such order, as far as known, has not been issued. However, the investigating judge heads his rulings by referring to the affected party as "suspect," which, in the view of the Public Prosecutor, generates reasonable perplexity and explains their requests for information.

In response, another school of thought recalls that preliminary UCO reports are not conclusive, that report generation has not yet finished, and that what leaks to certain media outlets does not resemble what those involved in the case handle. In other words: interested leaking as a journalistic genre. The result is an informational limbo where no one knows with certainty the exact procedural situation, and where each side tells the story that suits them.

Supreme Court jurisprudence and the real margin of the investigating judge

Here appears the most uncomfortable argument for those expecting a quick outcome. It is pointed out that the judge admitted this type of complaint contrary to Supreme Court jurisprudence, and that this has consequences. First: an investigating judge who steps into this swamp will not stay with the pitchfork. Second: the matter can drag on for years, with dismissals, appeals, reopenings, and returns through instances. In the end, it is predicted, everything will end in smoke, but with two years of judicial activity ahead.

There are those who recall that jurisprudence in Spain is not a source of law and that no one is obliged to comply with it, starting with the Administration itself. The Tax Agency, it is argued, systematically bypasses Supreme Court rulings, and those affected have to return to the Supreme Court to align their procedure with consolidated doctrine. And here, it is added, nothing happens: no official ends up in jail for contravening high court rulings. The corollary is uncomfortable: if jurisprudence binds no one, neither does it bind the judge in this case.

The double standard: the Infanta's case and Ayuso's partner

The most repeated comparison is that of Infanta Cristina. It is recalled that in that proceeding the affected party sat in the dock, was exonerated from incivil liability, and remained as a subsidiary civilly liable party for being a beneficiary at lucrativo title, with compensation that, according to this version, she did not pay. The argument extracted is that of the double standard: what was a judicial ordeal for some is an invented political persecution for others.

In parallel, the case of Ayuso's partner is invoked to demand symmetry: if there is something to investigate, it is investigated, without distinctions of political tonalidad. And the uncomfortable question is launched: Does the Public Prosecutor show the same interest in any citizen as in the president's vvife? Is that favoritism or privilege? The answer each person gives to that question depends, almost always, on where they had their vote before the spectacle began.

Fruta cost and institutional wear

Beyond the legal substance, there is a political reading that runs through the entire conversation. It is maintained that the president's vvife must not only be honest but appear so, and that this appearance should have been built beforehand. The ethical objection—not incivil, ethical—is that dedicating oneself to mediating between companies when that was not the previous professional occupation generates, at minimum, a problematic appearance. Possibly not a crime. Certainly not exemplary either.

And then there is the wear on those involved. A media lynching is foreseen for the judge in certain outlets, and encouragement is wished upon him, because he will need it. Attention is also drawn to the risk of sanction by the judicial governing body in a situation of interim appointment. And it is recalled, with irony, that accidents happen more frequently to those who investigate what should not be investigated. The shadow of the tailor of Camps' suits looms over the conversation as a warning of what happens when an investigating judge deviates from the script.

---

In the end, the floating question is not whether Begoña Gómez is guilty or innocent. It is whether a system that takes twelve years to resolve a matter and that dismisses, reopens, and dismisses again depending on the political wind is in a position to decide anything with authority. With these materials, anyone trusts the basket.