Two close collaborators of the former Labor Minister Eduardo Zaplana They filed a desperate appeal before the fifth section of the Valencia Court, where they put forward an “exceptional case of invalidity of proceedings” against the same court’s decision that paved the way for Zaplana’s trial and dismissed the Wasteland’s final appeals. case.
The appellants are the brothers Elvira and Saturnino Suanzes, who are investigated in this case for their close relationship with the former head of the Generalitat and his alleged front men. Elvira Suanzes was a prominent Zaplanista MP and former general secretary of the Institut Valencià de la Joventut (IVAJ). Having been out of politics for years, she was involved in the Erial case on suspicion that the Central Operations Unit of the Civil Guard (UCO) was interfering with the alleged exculpation of Zaplana and his alleged front men.
His brother, Saturnino Suanzes, is a lawyer in Barcelona and would continue the operations of Zaplana’s youth puppet and friend, Joaquín Barceló ‘Pachano, in “Andorra”, where he has four companies with open accounts in the Pyrenees country. UCO agents assessed in their report that there was “a union of interests between Barceló, Grau, Belhot, Zaplana and Suanzes”. According to the UCO of the Civil Guard, the Barcelona lawyer was “protecting the process of a Panamanian company” owned by Barceló.
In the appeal filed by both brothers, they are trying to get the fifth section of the Valencian Court to correct itself and overturn the previous decision of October 13. In this decision, the fifth division judges upheld the instructions of the Valencia 8th Investigation Court and the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office in the Erial case and dismissed the final appeals of half a dozen defendants. A decision allowing oral proceedings against former minister Eduardo Zaplana, former head of the Generalitat, José Luis Olivas, and others under investigation.
The lawyer of the Suanzes brothers stated that the decision of the fifth section of the Valencia Court of 13 October was “unlawful, [los] my clients’ fundamental rights are affected by the irreparable flaws of invalidity that causes vulnerability, as well as suffering from “absolute lack of motivation, argumentation, judgment, and consensus of error or erroneous opinion with respect to anything affecting my clients”.
They claim to “close early”
It further adds that the statements of the three judges in the fifth part of the trial “enabled the premature and improper closing of an instruction13 which did not specify the material interfered with, because it was relevant, to be attached to or excluded from it. or away from it. with regard to the investigated facts.
Both the Court’s decision rejecting the appeals and the shortened procedure given by the 8 presidents of the Investigation Court to conclude the investigation “do not allow them and [los Suanzes] to know certain facts and acts which, when attributed to them, may have the character and character of a crime”. In addition, they do not inform the records of “with which evidence or prosecution methods the said actions and facts will be carried out”; As well as not knowing how the investigators of the Erial case were “rationally and for what reason or reasons” deduced by both brothers of their knowledge of the criminal source of any property.
And in short, “what specific actions would be taken” by both brothers regarding the investigated facts of Zaplana “with said information that would be “typical and would constitute a money laundering crime”.
Emma Matthew is a political analyst for “Social Bites”. With a keen understanding of the inner workings of government and a passion for politics, she provides insightful and informative coverage of the latest political developments.