The first complaint against Judge Peinado for the 'Begoña Gómez case' is inadmissible

The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) has not accepted for processing the complaint filed by journalist Máximo Pradera against judge Juan Carlos Peinado. Pradera attributed to the magistrate, who has Begoña Gómez charged with influence peddling and corruption in business, alleged crimes of revealing secrets for having published details of the summary through the press office of the regional court and for having facilitated the popular accusations. some resolutions. This is the first complaint that was filed against the judge, and that the Prosecutor's Office also requested that it be archived.More informationThe TSJM has yet to rule on another complaint filed by the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, against the judge for having forced him to testify in person before him, and not in writing – a possibility that the law provides for the head of the Executive when it comes to matters that he knows by reason of his position. The regional court met last Tuesday to deliberate on this complaint by the PSOE leader, which he presented through the State Attorney's Office, but the judges' decision is not yet known. The magistrates have yet to debate another third complaint filed by Begoña Gómez against Peinado. Regarding Pradera's complaint, the court rules out that the investigating judge committed a crime of revealing secrets. The TSJ of Madrid admits that the secrecy of the summary was declared when the case was opened, but adds that this condition was subsequently “modified” to “establish a situation of partial secrecy of the proceedings.” The magistrates argue that, in this way, Peinado complied with the “principle of equality of arms” of the parties, since Gómez's defense had already been allowed to have access to certain initiatives of the procedure. The TSJ also rules out that a violation was committed. crime when the opening of the case was reported on April 24 through the press office. The judges recall that “only” the “initiation of the proceedings”, the “crimes that gave rise to it”, the “person investigated” (Begoña Gómez), “who filed the complaint” (the pseudo-union Manos Liminas) and the declaration of the “secret” of the summary. “In no way”, the Madrid court emphasizes, “is the substantive content of the proceedings being followed in the court transferred”: “The data [que se facilitaron a los medios] They do not reveal content that allows us to know the result of the investigation.” Along these lines, the resolution of the TSJM, dated this Thursday, includes the doctrine of the Constitutional Court that reads as follows: “The secrecy of the summary does not mean, in any way, that one or several elements of social reality (singular events or collective events whose knowledge is not limited or prohibited by another fundamental right) are taken away from freedom of information, in the double sense of the right to be informed and the right to inform, with the «only argument that certain summary proceedings are underway regarding those elements.» “The very existence of the process is public, otherwise we would return to past times in which the investigation model was inquisitorial,” adds the opinion dated this Thursday.