For the Public Ministry, the complaint submitted by Vox is based on “mere conjecture and suspicion”.
- Announcement Senior health ministry officials deny irregularities in the procurement of materials at the start of the pandemic
- coronavirus Court of Auditors finds “incidents” in 22% of Ela’s contracts during pandemic
Madrid’s Provincial Prosecutor has sent a letter to the head of the Court of Instruction No. 26 requesting a provisional file of a complaint filed by Vox against three senior government officials whom they accused of committing several irregularities in the acquisition of medical supplies. Beginning of the pandemic. For the representative of the public ministry, the political formation has not specified “minimum” indications to “adequately” investigate because the complaint is “based on mere conjectures and suspicions, without the appreciation of the consent of the substantial elements of evidence.” Specification with respect to crime data ,
The complaint was directed against three people: the director of the National Institutes of Health Management, the general director of procurement rationalization and centralization, and the general director of the National Health and Pharmacy System Service’s general portfolio. The political formation stated that 56 contracts were signed between March 13 and April 30, 2020 National Institute of Health Management (INGESA) without any kind of advertisement and outside any administrative process. In addition, it pointed to the fact that a dozen awards were given to companies of “dubious” existence because only one company name was known.
The prosecutor’s office states that the evidence provided by the complainants about possible irregularities in the administrative contract is based on “mere presumption” about the process and doubts raised by the award recipient entities “but without specifying what administrative context.” are breaches of such contract made by the public entity in such contract”. The lack of specificity, in his opinion, does not justify the request to check certain facts because of their importance and notoriety “because they may have a probabilistic nature, and there are other procedures for their general control.”
Subsequently, it focuses on the adaptation of the current rules to the contracts entered into by the public entity INGESA between the months of March and April of the year 2020. First, it states that there was a “notorious” and “indisputable” fact. It was the pandemic “and that the method of recruitment had to be adapted to the said event”. For this reason, it refers to a report of auditors made with all contracts entered into by INGESA between January 1 and December 31, 2020, including those that are the subject of the complaint, and concluded that the report “could not lead to a conclusion other than that the audited contracts were executed in full compliance with administrative regulations”.
“Lack of Recognition”
It is the conflict of evidence reported in the complaint with the “brief” and “detailed” reports prepared by the Court of Auditors on the agreements entered into in the complaint, prompting the prosecutor’s office to request the dismissal of the case. In addition, it specifies that the stipulations included in the complaint refer to, “documentaries provided by the State Attorney, providing administrative files and appreciating the existence of adequate controls with respect to both the form of the contract and the need for fulfillment to be successful.” The contractual obligation by the bidder also entails dismissal and filing of criminal investigation”.
Finally, the prosecutor’s brief denounces the involvement of the three defendants in the incidents. For the representative of the Public Ministry, the statement made in court by the Director of INGESA is “relevant” and, although he acknowledged that he was the person responsible for the contracts entered into by his department, he recalled that they were all subject to prior For inspection and subsequently by the Court of Auditors, “where the administrative budget for the execution of contracts at all their stages, as stated by the person under investigation, was met”.
As for the rationalization and centralization of contracts and general directors of the general portfolio of the National Health and Pharmacy System Service, she recalls that the first of them held the position of contracting authority in relation to INGESA for five days “of compliance and adaptation.” in support of the contract law for which the responsibility was entrusted to him, as per the report of the Court of Accounts provided in the case”. Regarding the other, “nothing has been proved, because it lacks the powers to be able to participate in slandered contracts, an extreme that precludes any kind of criminal liability requirement.”
Therefore, the prosecutor’s office concludes that there is a “total” lack of evidence of the facts in relation to the content of the complaint and the existing evidence against those investigated and, therefore, the “impossibility of the need for responsibility” for slanderers. with reference to the process”.
according to the norms of