The lawyer for "the mediator" asks the judge to clarify why there is no recording of the delivery of the mobiles

Since he took charge of the defense of Marco Antonio Navarro Tacoronte, known as 'the mediator', Rachid Mohamed Hammu has cast doubt on the origin of the procedure.

The circumstances in which Navarro Tacoronte' gave his consent for his mobile phones to be analyzed – the basis on which the investigation is based – have been the reason for recurring consultation with the magistrate. Mohamed questions the delivery of the mobile phones in which they reflected the activities of the alleged criminal plot led, according to the judge, by the former socialist deputy Juan Bernardo Fuentes Curbelo and now places a new element on the board that refers to the root of the case Mediator.

The defense lawyer wants to know why there are no recordings of the moment in which his client, in the duty court, agrees to put his mobile phones in the hands of the Police and Justice. These recordings, the lawyer explains in the appeal that he has just filed with the instructor, would be key to dispel any concerns about what happened between January 26 and 28, 2022, the date on which the 'mediator' was born with the delivery of the terminals after the arrest of Navarro Tacoronte for a crime of fraud that was filed.

In the letter, Rachid Mohamed expresses his surprise for two reasons: because they do not exist and because, he reveals, the magistrate assured her client's first lawyer, Plácido Alonso Peña (now under investigation) that the recordings existed.

“We cannot hide our surprise when the instructor herself repeated incessantly during the statement as an investigator of the lawyer Alonso Peña that all the personal proceedings carried out in the previous root proceedings were recorded,” the appeal states..

For this reason, it asks the lawyer of the Administration of Justice to “leave this incident on record” and requires the technical services attached to the Courts of Santa Cruz de Tenerife to report on what problems prevented the recording of these statements.

Those two days in January in which 'the mediator' was detained, are listed chronologically in the appeal that the lawyer has filed before the Provincial Court of Tenerife. The lawyer considers, and thus stated, the arrest and its extensions to clarify the crime of fraud, which was the one for which he had been summoned and the only one he was accused of at the time, “unjustified”.

»It is evident that in the course of those 48 hours a series of irregularities occurred with an undeniable impact on the right to a defense», says the appeal, which refers to «the strange circumstances in which the various changes of defense lawyers took place, the circumstances in which consent was given for access to mobile terminals (detained at police stations for a simple crime of fraud), or the alleged meetings held with our client without the assistance of a lawyer.

The appeal asks the Court to agree to take a statement from the first lawyers who assisted the mediator, as well as one of the police officers who questioned him.. He also wants the Technological Crime Group to detail the circumstances of all his encounters with the defendant.