Joaquín Urías charges against Judge Peinado's imposition of precautionary measures on Begoña Gómez in 'Malas Lenguas Noche': "They are disproportionate and unconstitutional measures"

The imposition of precautionary measures on Begoña Gómez by Judge Juan Carlos Peinado has generated a strong institutional debate, especially after the magistrate's argument about a possible risk of flight linked to police escorts, which has provoked reactions in the Ministry of Interior and in the General Council of the Judiciary.

In this context, the jurist Joaquín Urías analyzed the judicial resolution on Malas Lenguas Noche, describing it as “an inquisitorial process in which when one crime did not appear, another was investigated, that is, they have been digging until another crime was found,” and criticizing what he considers a drift in the instruction of the case.

Urías also questioned the nature of the measures adopted, which he referred to as “a firework, a way of attracting attention that I believe is out of place,” and also rejected the hypothesis about the alleged involvement of the escorts, calling it “a clumsy phrase, excessively clumsy.”

The jurist added that “nobody thinks it is really possible for the wife of the prime minister to escape to a country outside the Schengen area, for which she also needs a passport,” emphasizing that such a situation “would be the downfall of the prime minister, that is not a real possibility.”

In his speech, Urías maintained that the withdrawal of the passport responds to a logic that transcends the strictly procedural and argued that less restrictive measures could have been applied, such as periodic appearances.

He also warned of the political impact of the decision by stating: “I have the impression that this is an intrusion into the powers of the executive. What it wants is to interfere with Pedro Sánchez's international agenda,” and added that “when Pedro Sánchez is invited somewhere, even if he is invited with his wife, he will have to go alone.”

Despite his criticisms, the jurist clarified that he cannot attribute political intentions to the magistrate and expressed: “I want to think that he does it seeking justice, I do not dare to say that he does it with a political purpose.”

Finally, he warned of the media consequences of the decision, pointing out that “we are going to see very soon images of the president of the government at an official dinner where he cannot be accompanied by his wife and it will be used politically for his own discredit.” Urías closed his intervention by warning that the magistrate would have crossed “a red line” by adopting a decision that he described as “unnecessary, disproportionate, unconstitutional in that sense, and that affects the good name of the government and invades its competencies”.