The president of the judges’ association said the PGR had revealed “great losses” in the Madeira case

The president of the judges’ association said this Wednesday that the Attorney General of the Republic had identified “serious losses” in the Madeira case, and criticized the ministry for not being the first to provide clarification on the process.

On the sidelines of a conference on the topic of justice in the March legislative elections at the Faculty of Law of the University of Lisbon, the president of the Syndical Association of the Portuguese (ASJP), Manuel Soares, opined that the statement that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (PGR) published an instructive decision in the Madeira case that freed three accused, detained contrary to the deputy’s request for preventive detention, gave “interesting and important” explanations in the part where she “makes it clear that the hierarchy worked.”

“I didn’t really like, I must say, the part where it seems that it was bad to lose, so to speak. The process was complex, difficult and had an important impact on public life, but there was a judge’s decision, [que] did not agree with the increase from the prosecutor’s office,” he said.

The ASJP President reiterated that clarification from the MP in view of the “social anxiety” caused by the instructive decision was necessary, but regarding the moment when the statement was issued, although he understands that the decision on “timing” is up to the PGR, argued that the MP had to appear before the National Director of the Judicial Police.

“I don’t know if it should have been earlier [o comunicado ]but the person responsible for the inquiry is the Member of Parliament, not the Judge, and therefore who should be held accountable for successes and failures or for any failures or successes the Member of Parliament may have in Inquiry A or B, I think which there must be a deputy. (…) The director of the joint venture decided to talk about the process, this is also within his competence, it was he who led the investigative police, but as a citizen I want the structure that conducts the investigations to account for what happened. investigation, which is a deputy,” he said.

He also argued that with regard to the delay in the investigation in this case, which lasted 21 days and the extension of which was also mentioned in the PGR statement, it seems “excessive” to hold the judicial authorities and the investigating judge responsible for the delay without knowing what is under investigation, bearing in mind, that during the interrogation the deputy was presented with new documents.

He also argued that, on the one hand, the investigative decision takes into account the contradictions made by the detainees during interrogation, statements that were not made when other judges confirmed the evidence justifying the searches and wiretapping, and on the other hand, that this decision is interim, and is not final and may be overturned on appeal to the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

“When we have an interim decision, it is too early to crucify the judge or put him on the altar, because we have all realized that after a while we may have to eat our words,” Manuel Soares said, clarifying that the news “was intended in order to reach the judge and who reported old disputes with the prosecutor in this case, had the intention of “crucifixion”.

Last week, the High Council of Justice refused to have grounds to open an investigation into the conduct of the investigating judge in the Madeira case, namely the time that elapsed between the arrests and the application of coercive measures.

The deputy asked Pedro Calado, Avelino Fariña and Custodio Correia to apply the most serious measure of coercion, but Judge Jorge Bernardes de Melo decided to release the accused only with identification and residence, and the PGR announced an appeal against this decision.

On January 24, the SP carried out approximately 130 searches at home and abroad, mainly in Madeira, but also in the Azores and various parts of the continent, as part of the investigation process into suspicions of active and passive corruption and participation in economic activities. in business, malfeasance, receiving or offering an undue advantage, abuse of authority and undue influence.