Judicial Conflict Over Zapatero Investigation Intensifies
Anticorruption prosecutors clash with Judge Calama over embezzlement charges and investigative measures.
1Judicial Standoff Escalates
The investigation into former Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has triggered a significant rift between Judge Jose Luis Calama and the Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office. Prosecutors are currently evaluating an appeal against the judge's refusal to charge the former leader with embezzlement regarding valuable jewelry discovered in his office safe.
2Legal Interpretation Dispute
Judge Calama argues that no legal provision required high-ranking officials to surrender gifts to the state before the 2013 Transparency Law. Conversely, prosecutors contend that such obligations existed implicitly, citing Zapatero's 2012 voluntary surrender of a different royal gift as evidence that the legal requirement was already understood and applicable.
3Questionable Jewelry Origins
Despite rejecting the embezzlement charge, Judge Calama remains skeptical of the defense's explanation regarding the origin of the emeralds, diamonds, and sapphires found by the UDEF. The court has even requested an investigation into the origin of a 'T' mark engraved on the jewelry to verify its provenance and history.
4Unexecuted Search Warrant
Tensions first surfaced when the prosecutor requested a search of Zapatero's residence in Las Rozas and the seizure of his mobile phone. Judge Calama denied these requests, leading the prosecution to formally withdraw their support for the measure to avoid public confrontation, despite privately maintaining that the decision was a grave error.
5Passport Denial Controversy
A second major disagreement occurred when the judge refused to confiscate Zapatero's passport following his testimony regarding the Plus Ultra case. Prosecutors argued that the former leader's alleged role in an international influence-peddling network posed a flight risk, but the judge maintained there was no concrete evidence of such intent.
6Differential Treatment Allegations
Fiscal sources have expressed frustration, suggesting that the judge is granting Zapatero preferential treatment as if he were still an aforado, or protected official. Because Zapatero is not currently an aforado, prosecutors believe the judicial caution displayed by Calama is disproportionate and potentially hinders the effectiveness of the ongoing criminal investigation.
7Prosecutorial Strategic Options
While the judge has blocked specific charges, the Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office maintains that they retain the authority to include the embezzlement charge in their final indictment for the oral trial. This legal maneuver allows the prosecution to keep their options open despite the judge's current refusal to formally impute the crime.
8Historical Legal Precedent
Legal experts note that this case is unprecedented, as no former Spanish Prime Minister has ever been formally investigated in this manner. This unique status explains the extreme caution exercised by Judge Calama, who is navigating uncharted territory while managing intense scrutiny from both the public and the state's highest legal offices.
Original article: El Mundo – España — Judicial Conflict Over Zapatero Investigation Intensifies