CLASSIFICATION SECTION · HEARING · EVIDENCE CONTROL

What evidence was scheduled, and what was actually heard?

The issue can no longer be reduced to “some witnesses attended and others did not”. Court documents show a materially broader formal programme, initially reserved for two days. The judgment, however, records the hearing as held and completed on 25 July 2023. Por Derecho is reconstructing the difference person by person and document by document.

5 April 2023The Court formally scheduled the hearing for 25 and 26 July and ordered specific interrogations/witness arrangements.

25 July 2023All three audiovisual components currently preserved correspond to this date.

Judgment 163/2023Its tenth factual antecedent says the hearing was held on 25 July and, after evidence and submissions, the case was left for judgment.

READING RULE

Scheduled does not mean testified

Prepared→Admitted / scheduled→Citation ordered→Attended→Called→Testified→Addressed in judgment

This page does not convert an internal question list into judicial admission, or a summons into testimony. Nor does it treat a person as absent merely because no named remote-video tile is visible.

VERIFIED COURT PROGRAMME

The 5 April order reserved two hearing days

Date	Person	Scheduled function	Mode	Current public status
25 Jul	Gil Marer	Interrogation as affected person	In person under the schedule; later request for videoconference denied	Participation visible in supplied recording; verified transcript pending
25 Jul	Patricia Domínguez Montelongo	Interrogation as affected person	In person	Testimony status requires certified minute/transcript
25 Jul	Oliver Trujillo Paz	Witness/expert	In person	Requires certified minute/transcript
25 Jul	David Espejo Navarro	Witness/expert	Videoconference	Participant label verified in audiovisual; exact testimony pending
25 Jul	Jonathan Simó Morales	Witness/expert	Videoconference	Participant label verified in audiovisual; exact testimony pending
26 Jul	Uri Omid	Interrogation as affected person	In person	Judgment says hearing completed on 25 Jul; disposition of this item remains to be reconstructed
26 Jul	Jesús Curbelo Gutiérrez	Witness/expert	In person	Specific disposition unresolved
26 Jul	Francisco Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte	Witness/expert	In person	Institutional presence as AC does not prove he was called as a witness/expert
26 Jul	Pedro Camaña Coll (court wording; exact identity to reconcile)	Witness/expert	Videoconference from Arrecife	Specific disposition unresolved
26 Jul	José Ignacio Garrido Núñez	Witness/expert	Videoconference from Arrecife	Specific disposition unresolved
26 Jul	Rafael Franco Miranda	Witness/expert	Videoconference from Arrecife	Specific disposition unresolved
26 Jul	Francisco Mario Matos Matas	Witness/expert	Videoconference from Arrecife	Specific disposition unresolved

This table reproduces the formal scheduling layer. It does not assert that every listed person ultimately testified.

24 JUL 2023 · ACCESS TO EVIDENCE

An expert contemporaneously recorded a problem opening the filed evidence CD on the day before the hearing

David Espejo Navarro wrote directly to court personnel on 24 July after a telephone call he said he had just received from the court. His email records that he had been told that certain documents on the CD previously filed in the proceedings could not be opened, including expert evidence produced by his side. He added that the extremely short notice made it impossible to re-supply the documentation and that he did not know how many files were affected.

This is a contemporaneous professional communication and is concrete documentary evidence of a reported accessibility problem. It does not, by itself, prove what the Judge personally reviewed, when he reviewed it, or what effect the incident had on the judgment. Those questions require the evidence index, any cure/replacement actions, the hearing record and an actor-specific evidence trail.

RECORDING

What is preserved and what remains open

Three componentsPor Derecho has technically preserved and fingerprinted three files corresponding to 25 July.

Partial continuityVIDEO_01 and VIDEO_02 are effectively continuous. A visible-clock interval between VIDEO_02 and VIDEO_03 still requires explanation from the certified record.

End of recordingA contemporaneous post-hearing email chain questioned whether the third file ended before final submissions. The Court must confirm the complete audiovisual record.

Por Derecho does not claim that there is a “missing 26 July hearing”. The order reserved that day, but the judgment itself says the hearing was completed on 25 July. The precise question is how the evidence formally scheduled for 26 July was disposed of.

OUR POSITION AND OBJECTIVE

Reconstruct the evidence that actually existed and was heard

The defence had assembled an evidential architecture spanning accounting, tax advisers, economic/financial experts, hotel operations, dealings with the insolvency administration and other sources. Our objective is to determine what evidence was formally admitted or scheduled, what was accessible, what was actually heard, what was not, why, what the Court demonstrably heard, and how that evidential record was treated in Judgment 163/2023 and the pending appeal.

If the reconstruction shows a material irregularity, it should be visible in documents, summonses, recordings and rulings. If it shows that evidence was withdrawn, not served, duplicative or properly excluded, that should also be recorded.

← Back to the main classification page