Jorge Vilda wants his successor as head of the women’s soccer team to testify as a witness in the “Rubiales case.” The defense of the former coach insists that Judge Francisco de Jorge summon Montse Tomé to testify in the final stretch of the investigation into the kiss and the alleged pressure from Luis Rubiales – accused of sexual assault and coercion – on Jenni Hermoso after the World Cup final. on August 20 in Sydney (Australia).
In the appeal against the judge’s decision of November 21 -rejecting Tomé’s appearance-, Vilda’s lawyer maintains that the refusal of the instructor – who was limited to opposing the measure “without prejudice to the fact that she may be summoned to testify a in the oral trial, if it is opened” – is “orphan of any motivation” that would allow us to know “the reason or reasons” why it rejects the testimony, “thus prohibiting the right of this party to, in its case, question such arguments through the resources provided for this purpose in our Criminal Procedure Law”.
The current women’s coach of Morocco wants his right-hand man to clarify whether he did not call up Jenni Hermoso, on the first list after the World Cup, in retaliation for the “Rubiales case” and at his direction, as the accusations seem to indicate.
In this appeal for reform (on which the instructor himself must rule), to which LA RAZÓN has had access, Vilda’s lawyer justifies his request by the fact that in his judicial statement Rafael Hermoso, Jenni’s brother, “linked the “non-concentration” of the soccer player for Tomé’s first two games as coach with “alleged pressure” from her predecessor. “This same suggestion,” adds the lawyer, “is also contained in questions that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has asked other deponents in this procedure.” However, he complains, neither the Prosecutor’s Office nor the accusations “have proposed the summons of the current coach in order to verify whether her suspicions correspond to reality.”
Vilda had already been fired
When Montse Tomé made public that first call after the World Cup in Australia, Vilda had already been dismissed from his position and Rubiales had resigned from his position as president of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF). For this reason, the defense of the former national coach considers it appropriate for Tomé herself to “clarify the reasons for such a decision and whether it was imposed by third parties or was due to a strictly professional decision taken by herself, due to the circumstances that she considered appropriate at that time.” moment”.
The lawyer is “powerfully struck” by the fact that the judge refers this testimony, in his case, “to a procedural moment as advanced as the opening of the oral trial when, how could it be otherwise, the right of defense that protects to every investigator begins from the granting of such status”, to provide him during the investigation phase with sufficient defense capacity to try “to ensure that the continuation of the procedure and submission to oral trial is not appropriate.”
Finally, Vilda’s defense complains that De Jorge dispatched the request in an order, and not in an order, which is necessary – he remembers – when it is necessary to rule on “the admission or denial of evidence”, as stipulated in article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The lawyer considers this order “fully applicable to the investigative measures requested” during the investigation due to the “need to protect the right of defense and effective judicial protection.”
As it was not a matter of “procedural procedure”, Vilda’s defense urged the judge to revoke that ruling and issue a new resolution through a “duly reasoned” order in which he ruled on Montse Tomé’s testimony.
#Vilda #insists #Montse #Tomé #clarify #judge #pressured #summon #Jenni #Hermoso