Ernesto Ekaizer harshly criticizes David Sánchez's conviction in 'Malas Lenguas': "Sentence of a political nature"

Ernesto Ekaizer spoke again on 'Malas Lenguas', the La 2 program presented by Jesús Cintora, to analyze the sentence that condemns David Sánchez to nine years of disqualification for necessary cooperation in a crime of prevarication. The journalist was especially critical of the judicial resolution, which he described as a decision with significant legal weaknesses and assured that, in his opinion, "it was obliged to condemn him".

During his intervention, Ekaizer maintained that the very structure of the ruling reflects the difficulties of the court to substantiate the conviction. As he explained, although the sentence largely exceeds 370 pages, it barely dedicates a few pages to justifying the responsibility attributed to the brother of the President of the Government, while the rest relies on abundant jurisprudence. In addition, he recalled that the crime of influence peddling was dismissed due to lack of evidence and that the accusation of prevarication was incorporated by the Popular Party in the final conclusions of the trial, once the final phase of the procedure had begun.

The analyst also questioned the legal construction of the conviction by recalling that the crime of prevarication can only be committed by a public official, a condition that David Sánchez does not hold. For this reason, he criticized that he is attributed the role of necessary cooperator when, as he explained, the sentence only states that he attended the selection process for the position he obtained. "To be a necessary cooperator, he has to do something," he argued, insisting that this point is not accredited in the resolution.

Finally, Ekaizer criticized the use of the police report prepared by the UCO as one of the pillars of the sentence. The journalist recalled that, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law, a police report constitutes a complaint and not a piece of incriminating evidence, so he considers that it should not support a criminal conviction. Although he defended that, from a legal point of view, the resolution "should be revoked," he was pessimistic about its judicial journey and pointed out that the case will predictably end up reaching the Supreme Court and even the Constitutional Court.