[News]The Prosecutor's Office does not see a crime in the Government's management with the pandemic

[SougarLord]

 

The Prosecutor's Office of the Supreme Court does not see a crime in the management that the Government has deployed of the coronavirus pandemic and has expressed this in a report of more than 300 pages that asks the Second Criminal Chamber to reject a score of complaints filed against members of the Executive for crimes such as prevarication, reckless homicide, injuries or against the rights of workers.

 

Although the conclusion is the same for all, the prosecutors coordinated by Lieutenant Prosecutor Luis Navajas report each of the complaints filed by associations, parties and groups separately, with repeated arguments and in some cases, identical paragraphs.

 

Prevarication by omission

It is one of the crimes most pointed out by the complainants, who point to the inaction of the Government knowing the seriousness of the situation. The Office of the Prosecutor does not find a crime, but neither is it unforeseen. It alleges "the impossibility of affirming that, at least according to the current state of science, the defendants could have carried out any action that could avoid the unfortunate effects produced by the pandemic."

In this sense, it concludes that "there are no elements that allow affirming, not even incidentally, that the Government was not very agile or diligent" since it adopted the state of alarm on March 14 without there being "any data" that proves that Previously, the legal presuppositions to do so were given "objectively". The Prosecutor's Office also recalls that "there is no record that any of the Administrations whose territory was already affected by the Covid-19 outbreak had urged the Government" to take that measure.

 

Prevarication by action

 

As for the measures that he did adopt and that were harmful according to plaintiffs such as the Unified Civil Guard Association, the Professional Collective of the Madrid Municipal Police. Vox, the General Council of Official Nursing Colleges, the Terra Sos-Tenible Association and a private individual; The different prosecutors who have reported the complaints answer with the same paragraph: Nor has it been even indirectly justified in what the actions of the defendants contributed to creating or increasing a risk that, in addition to not being pre-existing, seems obvious that it was never found, nor could it be found, controlled, an extreme that prevents equating the inaction attributed to them to the actual cause of multiple deaths.

 

Occupational hazards.

This is one of the issues that focus the complaints of professional groups such as health or police and about which the National Court still has much to say.

 

The Office of the Supreme Prosecutor does not see a crime in this context either and replies to two of the complainants that "the generic references to the lack of equipment and the lack of control over those acquired", together with the fact that the direct victims of This alleged lack, "prevents determining" that there is not only criminal responsibility "but even any violation" of the regulations.

 

In the case of the police forces, there was a lack of means due to having been classified as a low-exposure group. In the case of the toilets, they did not have the adequate means. Regarding the Interior, the Prosecutor's Office understands that "it is difficult to conceive" that the minister "had" control of the risk "of each work center in which security measures were allegedly not provided." Regarding Health, it says that "there are no reasons that allow even incidentally attributing a crime against the rights of workers."

 

Defective material

In this context, it refers specifically to the purchase of diagnostic tests that turned out not to have approval and to masks that did not protect their users, health personnel. Both issues were included in the complaints both in the context of prevarication and in the context of risks to workers and the Prosecutor's Office does not see any criminal responsibility in the Minister of Health Salvador Illa, against whom they were directed, because it understands that he was not responsible direct from none of these purchases, but "the General Directorate of Common Portfolio of Services of the National Health and Pharmacy System", although it depends on his ministry.

 

From the tests, it concludes that Health awarded the contract to Interpharma who, "with clear breach of its contractual obligations, acquired" defective products "from a company of Chinese origin. "If we agree that the only conduct that could present indications of typicity is precisely that of importing defective sanitary products, its attribution should, in any case, be made to that commercial one," he says in this regard.

 

About "Garry Galaxy" masks. The Public Ministry understands that "the defectiveness of the same was, at that time out of its knowledge" and recalls that the Government's resolution for its purchase "does not require an evaluation of the same" and all this, in a "context" of "scarcity."

 

Individual behaviors

The complaints have ended up in the Supreme Court's inbox because they are directed against members of the Government, who are gauged. In most of the complaints, however, the Prosecutor's Office finds that an "objective criminal responsibility" is attributed to the Executive without specifying what conduct of each one would deserve reproach, which violates, according to it, the principle of guilt. A recurring defect that already sees reason for inadmissibility.