by Luís Maneta, Miguel Ferreira
In the process, a prosecutor from the Public Ministry who refused the case of aggressions to Leonor Cipriano tells about serious internal wars
The defense of four of the five Polícia Judiciária inspectors who stand accused of assaulting Leonor Cipriano, Joana’s mother, has denounced that the process stems from the existence of “conflicts” between the Public Ministry and the PJ. And it led to the revelation of serious cases of lack of understanding between the entities that are responsible for the criminal investigation in Portugal.
As early as during his opening statement at the Court of Faro, at the beginning of the trial – late last month – lawyer António Pragal Colaço, who represents the inspectors, recalled that the process passed through four Attorney Generals of the Republic.
According to Pragal Colaço, the explanation for the existence of said process is “contained within the request to be excused” that was filed by the third magistrate from the Public Ministry who was assigned to the case. An enigmatic statement, proffered in the audience room, which Colaço promised to decipher towards the end of the trial. 24Horas anticipated itself and consulted the process. The files show that the request to be excused that was filed by magistrate Carlos Pereira was related to profound divergences between the Public Ministry and the PJ.
This is the first time that evidence of a bad relationship between magistrates and policemen appear, black on white.
The prosecutor refers to “tensions” in his relationship with elements of the PJ during the years of 2005 and 2006. During those years, he says, there were from reports done by the PJ to the Public Ministry’s hierarchy until “calls to attention” directed by the prosecutor to the joint national director of Faro, Guilhermino Encarnação.
There are 90 pages that the prosecutor fills with cases that happened to him in various counties of the country and where divergences concerning the criminal investigation are evident. In an inquiry that took place in Olhão, for example, the PJ is accused of having carried out diligences “of doubtful legitimacy within the process” that should “not be repeated”. In another inquiry, the policemen stand accused of carrying out a “bad signaling of phone calls [tapping] to transcribe” and of using “expressions of a depreciative character concerning the eventual homosexual option of the target”.
In another inquiry – carrying the number 616/05.9 JAFAR – the PJ’s men are accused of “bad collection and packaging of the residues” of a crime.
The document also contains accusations of “illegal searches” that were performed in some cases and of “detentions that were carried out without exhausting the contact with the owner of the inquiry”, which is to say, the Public Ministry itself.
A source that is close to the arguidos’ defense refers that the process also includes “complaints that were filed with the Republic’s Attorney General’s Office by then coordinator Gonçalo Amaral and by the joint national director, Guilhermino Encarnação”. The targets of said complaints include one of the prosecutors that are responsible for the accusation against the PJ inspectors.
source: 24Horas, 11.11.2008