The Catarroja judge who is investigating the criminal case for the management of the dana rejected the request of a private prosecutor’s office for the ERC spokesperson in Congress to testify as a witness, Gabriel Rufianto explain “how, when and … “where” he was given a fragment of rope that the politician showed during the appearance of former Minister of the Interior Salomé Pradas – investigated in the procedure – before the commission of inquiry of the Lower House.
During this session, the ERC parliamentarian approached the stage to present Pradas a piece of rope which, as he recalled, was seized by a young girl of Chinese origin who died in the ravine and which the relatives of the victims sent to him to hand it over to the former Valencian president Carlos Mazón. As he had forgotten to give it to the former head of the Consell, Rufián left it on the table where the former councilor presented himself.
The prosecution that made the request asked the magistrate to call Rufián and the family of the deceased minor to testify. The judge, however, rejects these assertions because, she affirms, “the suffering and death of the minor of Chinese nationality, the pain of her family and the circumstances of her death are widely known”.
Nuria Ruiz Tobarra emphasizes, in an order dated this Friday and provided by the TSJCV, that the parents of the deceased minor, aged 11, “They don’t need to be cited again.”since they have already gone to court. Nor do they, nor Rufián, have to explain why the said piece of rope was in the possession of the said deputy.
“They have every right to hand it over to whoever they want. The piece of rope does not constitute proof of death, since his body was found, nor of the manner in which he died. The circumstances in which he died have already been recounted, not only by his family, but also by an injured witness. Despite his best efforts, he could not save her. The said witness and the injured party denounced him before this court, in the presence of his lawyer and before the Congressional Committee,” he adds.
And the magistrate insists: “The parents do not need to testify again. They shouldn’t. “You don’t need to invoke the Victims’ Statute to know that it is absolutely prejudicial to unjustifiably recount what happened in court.”
“There is no need to summon them to ask them what information they received before and during the dana, because the answer is simple. To save his daughter’s life? None“, said the judge forcefully.
Likewise, he refuses the request made by this accusation to incorporate the full copy of the declaration of Salomé Pradas before the Congressional Commission, which – he recalls – “had already been excluded in a previous resolution which emphasized the impossibility of transforming the version of the investigator into an amalgam of triple origin: the judicial declaration (with legal assistance), the statements in the media (without legal assistance) and the appearances before the commissions of inquiry (with obligation to tell the truth). chains are workable.
“It doesn’t add anything”
“This copy contributes nothing to the investigation of the case, nor to the investigation into the death,” underlines the judge, who specifies to the prosecution that “she cannot act in the defense of the interests of the parents” of the deceased minor.
“The parents already have someone to defend them privately, they are part of a victims’ association involved in the case. The association is Associació victims of the Dana October 29, 2024,” he underlines.
Regarding Gabriel Rufián’s request for testimony, the instructor explains that the reasoned presentation is reserved when it is assumed that there is evidence of a crime on the part of the accused. SO, “The prosecution does not specify this and we also do not know what crime he allegedly committed. Mr. Gabriel Rufián, nor what relationship he has with the investigation which is the subject of the case.
The rest of the requests, he continues, must also be rejected. “It is also not appropriate to join this case as evidence of the piece of rope, nor to carry out an expert analysis analyzing the existence of biological remains. Knowing how the miner died does not require analyzing any possible DNA that could be obtained from the rope. It also makes no sense to carry out a physical and hydrological analysis of the currents.
And it ends: “No one doubts the manner in which the girl died. Neither party. It is not necessary for it to be corroborated by the state of the fibers, nor for it to study the sediments present in the piece of rope (which is very difficult), and even less for it to carry out an expertise which evaluates the consistency of the expertise with the story of parents who helplessly witnessed the disappearance of their daughter. “They don’t need experts on the piece of rope to know what happened, and what happened is fully documented in the case.”
About The Author
