Accused of spying on a colleague’s and family’s clinical history, the nurses deny the facts. Both attended the hearing. this tuesday Cáceres County Court attributed by crime of discovering secrets and punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment and nine years’ disqualification. In Valencia de Alcántara, a doctor and a colleague were involved in the case for the same crimes at the same health center where two nurses and the alleged victim worked and where the alleged incidents took place.
The hearing was held in the jury room this Tuesday, and EE was the first to appear, answering questions from the prosecution, the private prosecution, and his own defense. In the applicant’s case, the public ministry alleges that between 2015 and 2015, he accessed the complainant profile with his account on the Jara system, an internal service of SES, accessible only to healthcare professionals. 2020.
Always, his response to the parties’ questions was to rule out any crime and leave the account open on the computer and have him contact third parties. “I didn’t, anyone could have come in,” he said.
Regarding the first accesses attributed to him in 2015, he stressed that he did not know him and that he only accessed his administrative data to contact and welcome him. The prosecutor assured that SES stated that access to administrative data was not recorded in the system, but consultation of health data was recorded.
All records coincide with the alleged victims’ disappearances and inquiries from their relatives. Concerning the latter, he compared his statement as he stated that he had experienced it at Valencia Health when the complainant was infected with covid at the start of the pandemic, although he claimed that he was not responsible for the accesses. The Center in Alcántara stressed that he “never expressed opposition to us seeing his PCR for the victim.” “It was a chaotic situation, more of a necessity than a crime because you had to know who was positive, nobody thought it could be a crime, I don’t know how we hurt us so much by damaging your privacy,” he concluded.
The same position was held by the second defendant, GG, who ensured that he maintained an “existing” relationship with the complainant, despite the fact that Cáceres “didn’t like the chips” of his preferred merit competition. “I never got into her story because this lady’s life lifts her up,” she said.