Amama Sevilla president Angela Claverol confirmed on Tuesday that the entity “still believes” that there is evidence of breast cancer screening that was not “the same” as when it was first performed, and said that she will study the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s file of her complaint about “alleged manipulation” of mammograms, when it reaches her “because we found out about it from the press,” to analyze whether or not an appeal is possible.
Claverol admitted, in statements to the media, that filing the complaint “somewhat surprised us.” President Omama said: “I did not expect it to be this way,” stressing also that the association is studying “other cases” of possible tampering with diagnostic tests from the breast cancer detection program.
“We cannot evaluate anything because we have not received the letter. We have to read it to see if we can appeal. I learned about it from the press,” Angela Claverol said after learning that the Seville Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office had filed the complaint about the “alleged disappearance” of medical evidence in the Andalusian Health Service (SAS) by ensuring the safety of data”.
The Information Crimes Section ruled out committing crimes of discovering secrets or damaging computers after a “technical audit.” The “failures” in displaying tests in ClicSalud+ were due to “servers becoming saturated due to excessive demand, without deleting or changing clinical records,” the Andalusia Council said.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office explained, in a press release, that the Computer Crimes Section of the Seville Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision to archive open investigative procedures following complaints submitted by the Association of Women Suffering from Breast Cancer (Amama Sevilla) and the El Defensor del Paciente Association, ABC reported. The investigation, which began last October, aims to clarify whether the failure to access diagnostic tests (mammograms and ultrasound) through the ClicSalud+ application and the Derayah system was due to “deliberate deletion or illicit access” to SAS databases.
After “analysis of the technical reports” of “SAS” and “investigations” of the Judicial Police Unit, the decree of November 26, 2025 concluded that “there was neither “system saturation, internal manipulation, nor external sabotage.” The interruption of the viewing service in October was “due to a flood of requests” that overwhelmed the “Citizen Viewer” unit. The Public Prosecutor’s Office stressed that “it has been determined that this incident had an exclusively operational impact on external viewing, without affecting the safety or health.” Or the ability to trace clinical records hosted on central servers.”
Audits conducted on the complaining patients’ records confirm that “there was no modification, deletion, or unauthorized access to their medical records.” Security records “state” that the information remains “complete and consistent with care protocols.”
Regarding a patient’s complaint about the “alleged deletion” of the mammogram report and cancellation of the ultrasound examination, “the technical investigation ruled out any tampering.” The judicial body stressed that the changes in the testing schedule were due to “clinical management standards and not external or malicious interference.”
Since there were “no evidence” of crimes of discovering and disclosing secrets (Articles 197 and 198 of the Criminal Code) or destroying a computer (Article 264 of the Criminal Code), the Deputy Public Prosecutor for Information Crimes agreed to file the case. However, the Public Prosecution reminded that “this file is limited exclusively to the crimes subject of the complaint and does not prevent the concerned parties from raising their disputes about delaying or rescheduling tests or about the medical standards applied before the competent judiciary or through the approved administrative channels.”