The politician must present his conversations with the actress to the judge

News in the case of the former deputy of adding in Congress. The magistrate in charge of the procedure had requested the dump of information on the mobile phone of Iñigo Errejón And he filed a resource opposing the measure, claiming that this measure violated his right to privacy and offered a notarial act on the existence of messages between victim and denounced. Finally, Judge Carretero has ordered the transcription only of the conversations between the founder of Podemos and Elisa Mouliáarespecting that the rest of the information keeps the politician of the politician is the margin of the investigation.

According to Article 14the judge bases his decision on the importance of these conversations, as the protagonists offered very different versions of them during their statement: “They are a very important test to analyze the credibility of the version of the parties”he says.

Elisa Mouliáa’s victory

On the other hand, Elisa Mouliáa has won her battle regarding psychological reports, since the Carretero Judge has agreed to add to the cause the expert reports, as requested of the complainant, as requested by Errejón’s defense. The judge explains that the contribution of the same could “reveal aspects of his life or other pathologies that are not related to the facts”, so they do not proceed that they are used as evidence. Of course, the judge affected the actress the contradiction that a resource involves in the intermission so that psychiatric reports are not admitted as proof when she was the one who, in her statement, said “having had psychic problems because of the facts denounced and wanted to verify this extreme”.

The magistrate, in addition, has also rejected the request of Errejón’s defense to include as proof the complaint for alleged bad treaties of Elisa to her ex -husband, who was archived. The magistrate gives the right to the actress and the popular accusation exercised by the Association of Integral Defense Aid to the specialized victims and concludes that this cause is “after the facts”, pointing out that their contribution could “affect the privacy of third parties people outside the procedure “. And he adds: “The same does not happen with the press news because they are public and although they do not constitute proof in a strict sense they can clarify indications of other tests or complete them.”