Ignasi Guardans asks for "seriousness" when speaking of obstruction of justice and questions the indictment of Mercedes González versus the Villarejo case

The jurist and former deputy Ignasi Guardans has questioned the indictment for an alleged crime of obstruction of justice against the director general of the Civil Guard, Mercedes González, considering that a legal concept is being used improperly.

During an interview on Cadena SER, Guardans called for prudence in the use of criminal terminology. "One must be very careful with the words used," he stated, because "obstruction of justice is a crime" and "it is a legal concept, defined in the Penal Code, which is what she is being accused of here."

In this regard, he maintained that "meeting with a PSOE colleague, or lying, because it is possible that she did, or lying in a press conference, in an appearance, not before the judge, because she has never lied before the judge (...), that is not obstruction of justice." He insisted that "lying to a media outlet or lying in a press release about whether she had met or had not met, that is not obstruction of justice."

Therefore, he asked for "a little more seriousness with the words we use," since, in his opinion, "we are contributing to the hoax, to the fire and to adding fuel to a tremendously dangerous situation."

Guardans acknowledged that "having the director general of the Civil Guard indicted is a problem," but added that "having a judge who considers that having sat down with a PSOE militant is obstruction of justice is a problem for me." In that context, he criticized that other actions that, in his opinion, "would fit perfectly" into that crime have not had criminal consequences.

Regarding the facts investigated, he stated that "having committed a falsehood, which is possible (...), not a crime," although he admitted that "can it have political responsibilities? Probably yes." In fact, he pointed out that the director general "has committed a political blunder," but rejected that this justifies an indictment for obstruction of justice.

Likewise, he recalled that this crime "involves violence, intimidation, destruction of evidence, falsification of testimonies," insisting that these elements are what define obstruction of justice.

Guardans also criticized what he considers a double standard in judicial action. He stated that "having a judge who considers that having sat down with a PSOE militant is obstruction of justice is a problem for me", especially when, as he pointed out, "all of Cospedal's conversations are not a crime", "having met for hours and hours and hours with Villarejo to conspire is not a crime" or "having sat down to say how Supreme Court judges are manipulated and who is put there, which would also be obstruction of justice, would perfectly fit the concept of the crime that exists, well, that is not a crime either".

Regarding the reserved investigation opened to clarify possible leaks in the Civil Guard, he defended that "it is something that is done very frequently in the Administration" and explained that he himself was "a witness to a reserved investigation in a certain general directorate". In his opinion, interpreting the opening of that procedure as intimidation means that "what is being done is to intimidate the director general of the Civil Guard".

Finally, he warned that the interpretation of the judge and the Civil Guard associations transmits to current and future leaders of the corps the message that "you do not investigate anything or you will be charged", because, he said, "if you ask questions, we will consider that you are threatening our freedom". "That is also the interpretation I make of this charge", he concluded.