This week, following the final Strasbourg ruling, two National Police unions have issued statements on the matter. One, the SUP, to point out that the commissioner of the Judicial Police is the person most responsible for the irregularities committed at police headquarters. Another, Jupol, of which said commissioner is an affiliate, to defend its actions. Attorney Beaumont responds.
What is your opinion on the notes from police unions on responsibility in this matter?
–To the obvious and embarrassing lack of any show of affection towards the victims and the clamorous silence regarding the actions of the police brother-in-law, several issues must be added. The first, that Jupol does not get the truth right because part of the events reported in Strasbourg occurred in February 2019 when this police station had been in Pamplona for more than a year. These are facts, in which the Jupol affiliate intervened together with other police officers, consisting – literally because this is documented – of “cutting the files to leave it empty” from a hard drive (on which some time ago the report had been copied for the first time from the phone of the detained brother-in-law of a police officer who later disappeared mysteriously and forever), despite the fact that there was a court order – addressed directly to this police station – to preserve the police file and certify the invariability of its content. The second, that Jupol affirms that the Navarrese Justice shelved this investigation, but forgets to do so that the Strasbourg Court also very seriously censures the Navarrese Justice for everything that happened, also with these events. And the third, that the Court of Strasbourg does not give names and surnames to these facts, but does affirm – and this is again verbatim – that it “raises special concern, given that a judicial preservation order was still in force” and then also states (referring, along with others, also to these facts) that “given that the destroyed evidence could have been decisive in proving or refuting the plaintiffs’ allegations, its disappearance seems to represent a particularly serious failure in the preservation of the evidence. said unanimously seven Thursdays from seven different European nationalities, all of them specialists in human rights.”
