Begoña Gómez hands over her passport to judge and requests its return for summer
The wife of the Prime Minister complies with the precautionary measure imposed by Judge Peinado, but her legal team seeks its revocation citing the approaching summer season.
Begoña Gómez hands over her passport to judge and requests its return for summer
On Wednesday, the wife of the head of government attended the courts in the capital to comply with one of the restrictions imposed on her. The investigating judge required the delivery of her travel document after deciding that she must stand trial for alleged corruption offences, embezzlement, influence peddling and misappropriation.
Gómez arrived at the judicial building in Plaza de Castilla at 17:50, a few minutes before the scheduled time. As is customary, she entered through the underground car park to avoid media scrutiny. Her lawyer, former Interior Minister Antonio Camacho, emerged shortly afterwards and merely stated that the proceeding had taken place normally. Before leaving, some protesters from Hazte Oír threw plastic handcuffs at him.
Gómez, also an adviser at Moncloa, along with fellow adviser Cristina Álvarez, had already fulfilled the same obligation two days earlier.
Gómez's legal team has filed an appeal with the Provincial Court requesting that all precautionary measures be lifted. The document, filed on Tuesday, argues that they are disproportionate and contrary to the right to move freely throughout national territory. As the principal reason for their revocation, it invokes that "the summer season is approaching".
In addition to the confiscation of her passport, the judge prohibited her from leaving Spain and required her to report to the court every fifteen days. These restrictions were based on the judge's assessment of a flight risk, which the defence flatly denies.
The lawyers of the defendant contend that her whereabouts are permanently known to the security personnel protecting her. They also emphasise her family, professional and employment ties in the country, as well as her exemplary behaviour regarding court summonses.
The magistrate, however, had previously rejected the notion that police protection constitutes a sufficient guarantee. In his ruling, he even suggested that officers could facilitate an escape on their own initiative or by order of their superiors. This reflection prompted a strong response from police associations and from the defence itself, which called it an inadmissible conjecture.
Source: ABC
Source: ABC