Puigdemont’s lawyer tries to annul the shelving in Madrid on espionage with Pegasus with what was decided in Barcelona

The Provincial Court of Madrid sees no evidence to hold on to investigate the alleged espionage with Pegasus that Gonzalo Boyelawyer for the former president of the Generalitat Carlos Puigdemónty and the former president of the Parliament Laura Borràs, says they have suffered together with about 60 Catalan independentistas. In an order, in which the court endorses the file agreed by the judges who had to rule on her complaint, the Court says that the lawyer has not contributed more than conjectures of that alleged espionage. To try to revoke the final file, the lawyer requests the annulment of proceedings, among other arguments, because the Madrid decision is diametrically opposed to the one adopted in Barcelona where other similar cases are being investigated.

In a 42-page document, to which EL PERIÓDICO DE CATALUNYA has had access, Boye alleges to reach that conclusion “the Chamber omits any reference to the expert report of Citizen Lab, where it is accredited the espionage suffered and transforms it into ‘alleged reports'”, when “they are not alleged and here the only assumption was that we were before an impartial court”.

“So flagrant and rude is the violation of the fundamental rights of the complainant that on the same date as the notification of this resolution, the Provincial Court of Barcelona, ​​in an identical case and on the same matter, resolved in a direction diametrically opposed to that carried out by this Chamber, stating that they are identical cases”, in reference to the espionage allegedly suffered by the lawyer Andreu Van den Eynde, defender of the ERC president, Oriol Junqueras.

Shameful

Hence, he considers that in his case he has been deprived of rights and that justice depends on the place where he resides. “For this Chamber, Gonzalo Boye has no rights, for the mere fact of doing his work, which is an approach incompatible with any exemplary democracy”affirms the letter in which he describes the resolution of the Madrid Court as “shameful”.

Among his arguments, the lawyer affirmed that “ignorance causes concern, surely the product of a lack of impartialitywhich this Chamber demonstrates when it elaborates in the terms in which it has done so in the contested order and this is so because, among other things, it omits” that the European Parliament included in its conclusions on Pegasus a paragraph that considers that the resolution itself breaches.

As for Spain, MEPs say country ‘has an independent justice system with sufficient safeguards’, but questions linger over spyware use. They note that the Government is already working to address the deficiencies, but call for ‘full, fair and effective’ investigations, especially in the 47 cases where it is not clear who authorized the deployment of spywareand to ensure that victims obtain legal redress.”

Related news

Boye emphasizes that “the members of that Commission, when they talk about ‘an independent justice system with sufficient safeguards’, they insist on issuing a message that this Chamber has not understood or has not listened to, since the complainant here, moreover, appears expressly included as a victim of the Pegasus spy system in the aforementioned report. In any case, What the Commission is asking for is exactly what this Chamber deprives the complainant of: a complete, fair and effective investigation.“.

Hence, he considers it essential that the filing of his complaint be revoked and an investigation be opened in relation to the company that owns the Pegasus software. The Madrid Court ruled it out on the grounds that “directing the lawsuit against generic form against foreign companies and foreign reputable individuals who are associated with the Pegasus software would be equivalent to wanting investigate the arms manufacturer as a necessary cooperator for having subsequently manufactured casings and supposedly having sold them to the supposed unknown author. Thus, it lacks any real and reasonable basis for claiming to hold the manufacturer responsible for the use that was later given to it, also ignoring how he would have supposedly acquired it.”

ttn-24