The former ministerial advisor, Koldo García has requested the Supreme Court the "urgent" suspension of the oral trial initiated at the beginning of April against him, former minister José Luis Ábalos and businessman Víctor de Aldama. The request is based on the latest report from the Central Operative Unit of the Civil Guard (UCO), which introduces, according to the defense, "new facts" related to the purchase of sanitary material during the pandemic in Baleares.
In its brief, García's defense argues that these new elements make “the continuation of the trial impossible” in its current state. As an alternative to the total suspension, it proposes that the president of Congress, Francina Armengol, who already testified in the process, albeit in writing, be summoned again to do so now in person and with all procedural guarantees.
The lawyer Leticia de la Hoz maintains that there is a "structural incompatibility" between the trial being held in the Supremo and the parallel investigation that continues in the Audiencia Nacional. In her opinion, both cases address the same core of facts, which could generate duplicities and violations of fundamental rights.
The focus of the controversy is on the awards of mask contracts during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Baleares y Canarias. According to the defense, both the Supremo and the Audiencia Nacional are investigating “the same organization, the same agreement and the same remuneration mechanism,” in reference to alleged commissions in exchange for public contracts to the company Soluciones de Gestión.
In this way, the UCO report on the Balearic Government, then presided over by Armengol, introduces elements that, according to the defense, contradict his previous statement as a witness. Therefore, his in-person appearance is requested to be able to subject his testimony to direct contradiction by all parties to the process.
The defense also requests the nullity of the actions carried out so far, considering that continuing the trial without integrating this new data would generate “vitiated procedural acts”. It argues that this situation could cause defenselessness to its client and violate the right to a process with all guarantees enshrined in the Spanish Constitution.
