# José Luis Ábalos Appeals Mask Case Conviction to Constitutional Court Former minister challenges Supreme Court jurisdiction and reliance on co-accused testimony. - **Source:** [elDiario.es](https://www.eldiario.es) - **Published:** 2026-11-05 - **Topic:** [politics](https://brifing.si/c/politics) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/62d6eb1c-8b86-4596-820f-2161d8c90ac1 ## Constitutional Appeal Filed Former Transport Minister José Luis Ábalos has filed an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court to annul his 24-year prison sentence in the Mascarillas case. His defense argues that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to judge him after he ceased being a parliamentary deputy on January 28, 2026, before the preliminary hearing. ## Challenge to Jurisdiction The defense contends that Ábalos should have been tried by the National Court rather than the Supreme Court. They argue that the Supreme Court relied on a non-jurisdictional plenary agreement from December 2014, which lacks the force of law, to retain competence over a defendant who was no longer a parliamentary member. ## Testimony of Co-accused A central pillar of the appeal is the challenge against the testimony of businessman Víctor de Aldama, described as a rewarded co-accused. Ábalos’s lawyer, Marino Turiel, argues that the conviction lacks sufficient external corroboration, noting that the court admitted there was no independent evidence linking Ábalos to specific payments mentioned in Aldama's records. ## Presumption of Innocence The appeal asserts that the conviction violates the right to the presumption of innocence and equality of arms. The defense claims that the court's reliance on Aldama's testimony, given the significant benefits he received, requires a much higher level of scrutiny than what was applied during the original trial proceedings against the former minister. ## Disputed Evidence Items The defense specifically contests evidence regarding alleged payments to nicknames like 'Gran' and 'Goblins'. Furthermore, they challenge the court's interpretation of other indicators, such as rental payments for an ex-partner's apartment, vacation gifts related to Air Europa, and alleged pressures exerted on Adif and Puertos del Estado for mask procurement contracts. ## Digital Evidence Access Ábalos claims his right to defense was violated because he was denied access to the raw source of digital evidence. Although the conviction relies heavily on messages reported by the UCO, the defense was only provided a selection of files, preventing a proper forensic audit of the data's integrity and chain of custody. ## Request for Release As a precautionary measure, the defense has requested that Ábalos be released from prison while the appeal is processed. They argue that every day spent in custody under a potentially void conviction constitutes an irreversible deprivation of liberty, especially since the current legal situation lacks established constitutional doctrine regarding ministerial immunity status. ## Legal Precedent Significance This case presents a unique opportunity for the Constitutional Court to establish doctrine on whether a former minister retains immunity before the Supreme Court after losing parliamentary status. The court must now decide if the lack of a revision process for such cases aligns with constitutional guarantees and the right to defense. ## Sources covering this story - https://www.eldiario.es/politica/abalos-pide-amparo-constitucional-anular-sentencia-apoya-aldama-coacusado-premiado_1_13639710.html — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._