The National High Court Prosecutor's Office denies that there has been a "change of position in the case called Miguel Ángel Blanco". In a press release, the Public Ministry defends that "neither in this procedure nor in any other have directives of any kind been received, and less of a political nature."
This Thursday at the hearing in which the former directors of the terrorist group Mikel Antza and Anboto have to testify, the absentee in the room was the prosecutor who was handling the case, Vicente González Mota. According to tax information sources to ABC, his absence was due to discrepancies a few days before with the chief prosecutor of the National Court, Jesús Alonso, due to the interpretation that each one was subscribing to the prescription of the crimes in question. Previously, Alonso had submitted a query to the Technical Secretariat of the State Attorney General's Office, which still directs who will be Dolores Delgado's substitute at the head of the Public Ministry, Álvaro García Ortiz, who concluded that the doctrine should prevail over traditional prescription against to the initial prosecutor's thesis. In other words, both ETA members cannot be tried for this crime since 25 years later it has prescribed.
Mota defends that the prescription does not begin to count until the moment of the arrest; however, from the Technical Secretariat they interpret that time begins to run at the moment in which the crime is committed. Faced with this change of criteria, Mota refused to appear in court and, instead, went to another prosecutor, Pedro Rubira, who did agree with the criteria of the Technical Secretariat.
According to the legal sources consulted by ABC, in the hearing he clarified that the Civil Guard reports that pointed out Mikel Antza and Anboto as the ETA leaders who ordered and could have prevented the Ermua councilman's crime is not enough to demand a possible criminal liability if there is no further evidence to support it.
“The same criteria”
In the statement released yesterday, the Prosecutor's Office also defends that the body "has exercised, exercised and will continue to exercise the tasks that the Constitution and the Organic Statute reinforced us: promote the action of justice in defense of legality", for this - they point out – 'Procure the corporate interest subject, in any case, to the principles of legality and impartiality'. After denying any type of political intervention in the criteria of the Prosecutor's Office of the National High Court, they point out that "action criteria continue to be the same as those that existed at the time of the reopening."
The Public Ministry has also assured that “it will continue to exercise its functions as it has been doing up to now; with professionalism, legality, and loyalty” and rule out political issues: “The Prosecutor’s Office is governed by legal and jurisprudential criteria.”
In the same statement, the Prosecutor's Office explained the application of the prescription of the agreement to Organic Law 10/1995: "The calculation of the same begins with the criminal act and is interrupted when the direct procedure against a specific person through an act of imputation «.
