As the trial against David Sánchez Pérez-Castejón enters its final phase, a revelation made by Luis María Pardo, lawyer and president of Iustitia Europa, has introduced an element of enormous significance that threatens to become one of the most delicate issues in the entire case.
During his intervention, Pardo focused on documentation that, according to him, has been in the possession of the Central Operative Unit (UCO) of the Guardia Civil for months and which, however, has not been the subject of specific or sufficiently in-depth investigation.
This involves at least five emails sent by David Sánchez Pérez-Castejón to the address pedrosanchez1212@gmail.com, an account that appears repeatedly in the documentation incorporated into the proceedings and which received communications related to the labor, administrative, patrimonial, and banking matters of the brother of the President of the Government.
According to the reference provided in court, these emails are contained in Event 1555, Digital Annex F15, Annex 2, David Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, specifically in the following documentary references:
-
Email 81-21-03, dated October 30, 2018.
-
Email 812615, from September 2019.
-
Email 2790, dated November 22, 2019.
-
Email 812794, dated December 2, 2019.
-
Email 811276, dated December 17, 2021
pedrosanchez1212@gmail.com
According to the popular prosecution, all of them share a common denominator: David Sánchez forwards to the account pedrosanchez1212@gmail.com documentation from the Badajoz Provincial Council or directly linked to his professional and patrimonial situation.
Among the content referred to during the hearing would be communications relating to conflicts of interest, housing rental contracts, bank ownership certificates, documentation on current accounts, and issues related to the compatibility of his job with other professional activities.
The key email: incompatibility, leave of absence, and job transformation
One of the documents that attracted the most attention during the hearing is the one incorporated into Attestation 182/2024, on PDF folio 239, corresponding to María Emilia Parejo's annex and David Sánchez's File F2.
According to Luis María Pardo, that email was sent by David Sánchez to the address pedrosanchez1212@gmail.com and contained a communication previously sent by María Emilia Parejo, Director of the Culture Department of the Provincial Council, who later became coordinator of the Equality Department.
David Sánchez's Incompatibility
The relevance of that message lies in the fact that it directly addresses the issue of the incompatibility of the position held by David Sánchez in the Provincial Council of Badajoz.
The text reproduced during the hearing referred to a regulatory modification according to which compatibility could not be recognized for temporary staff, management, or those subject to special high-level employment relationships.
The email also recalled that the position of coordinator of musical activities for the conservatories included specific observations in its Staffing Plan (RPT), including reference to incompatibility, special dedication, and extended working hours.
The communication itself concluded by stating that, from the perspective of the author, the situation was incompatible, proposing as a possible alternative the signing of a protocol of action between the Provincial Council and the Orquesta Sin Fronteras, allowing David Sánchez to participate in a monitoring committee representing said entity.
For the popular prosecution, this document constitutes a particularly relevant piece because it connects with one of the most debated aspects of the entire investigation: the evolution of the position held by David Sánchez within the Provincial Council.
From Creation to Modification: The Debate on the Performing Arts Office
The popular prosecution also focused on Digital Annex F15, Sheet 7 of María Emilia Parejo, specifically on pages 315, 316, and 317 of the UCO's report.
According to the thesis defended during the hearing, the emails included in those pages would reflect an administrative discussion about the real nature of the new position that David Sánchez would eventually occupy.
Initially, the term "creation" would have been used to refer to the new administrative structure.
However, according to the documentation cited by the prosecution, Julián Expósito would have proposed replacing this expression with "modification," arguing that the creation of a new position would require following certain administrative procedures and could open a public competition process.
The result would have been the substitution of the term "creation" for "modification" in the internal documentation.
For Luis María Pardo, this issue is essential because the transformation of the position of coordinator of musical activities in the Office of Performing Arts constitutes one of the central axes around which the accusation revolves.
Even more so when, as he maintained in court, after David Sánchez's leave of absence and paternity leave, the job description would have undergone significant changes, including the disappearance of the reference to incompatibility.
The question no one answers: why didn't the UCO investigate the content of these emails?
The most striking issue raised by the popular prosecution was not the existence of the emails. It was the absence of a specific investigation into them.
Luis María Pardo posed a question during the hearing that summarizes a good part of the doubts he intends to convey to the court: Why did the UCO not develop a specific line of investigation into emails in which David Sánchez sent to the account pedrosanchez1212@gmail.com documentation relating to conflicts of interest, rental contracts, bank ownership, current accounts, and issues directly related to his position in the Provincial Council of Badajoz?
The question takes on special relevance because the prosecution itself maintains that these documents could offer relevant information to understand the administrative evolution of the position and the decisions made regarding David Sánchez's professional compatibility.
The parallelism with the statements about the DAO
And it is precisely here that one of the most explosive elements of Pardo's intervention appears. The lawyer links this lack of investigative depth with the recent statements made about the alleged instructions transmitted from the leadership of the Civil Guard.
Various testimonies have maintained that the then Deputy Operational Director (DAO) would have conveyed to commanders and agents the advisability of not being particularly proactive in certain investigations with political repercussions.
It is essential to emphasize that these statements are part of ongoing judicial proceedings and do not constitute judicially proven facts. However, the popular prosecution considers it legitimate to wonder if the absence of a more intense investigation into these emails is related to the context described by the witnesses.
The thesis that Pardo slips is clear: if there were emails containing information about incompatibilities, assets, bank accounts, lease agreements, and internal communications of the Provincial Council, it is difficult to understand why these elements did not generate a specific line of analysis within the investigation.
The five emails in the last minute of the procedure
When the trial is practically concluded, the public appearance of these documents introduces an element that may have repercussions beyond the sentence itself.
The issue is no longer limited to the content of the emails. The issue becomes whether certain documentary evidence received the same level of scrutiny as other lines of investigation developed during the investigation.
The five emails exist in the documentation incorporated into the procedure. The documentary references were identified in court. And, the messages were sent by David Sánchez to the address pedrosanchez1212@gmail.com.
According to the popular prosecution, said emails contained information relating to incompatibilities, assets, bank accounts, leases, and administrative decisions linked to his position in the Provincial Council of Badajoz. Therefore, as the oral hearing approaches its conclusion, the question posed by Luis María Pardo remains unanswered:
Thus, this is the unknown that the popular prosecution leaves posed in the final stretch of the trial. And that is also the reason why these five emails threaten to become a full stop when the procedure is about to be submitted for sentencing, and in whichProsecution and accusation have requested the acquittal of all defendants.