The case against Salvador Illa for the defective masks has been reopened

The Provincial Court of Madrid has reopened the case against the former Minister of Health Salvador Illa for the complaint filed by the State Confederation of Medical Unions (CESM) for the distribution of non-approved masks among health personnel in April 2020.

Thomas Osborne
Thomas Osborne
22 December 2022 Thursday 03:31
24 Reads
The case against Salvador Illa for the defective masks has been reopened

The Provincial Court of Madrid has reopened the case against the former Minister of Health Salvador Illa for the complaint filed by the State Confederation of Medical Unions (CESM) for the distribution of non-approved masks among health personnel in April 2020.

In an order, to which EFE has had access, the Court upholds the Union's appeal against the order of the Investigating Court number 14 of Madrid that decreed the provisional dismissal of the procedure against the former minister.

In this way, the court revokes the filing of the case and orders the court to begin the criminal investigation, recalling that it agreed to dismiss the proceedings without carrying out any diligence.

Specifically, it asks the judge to send letters to the Carlos III Health Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in order to issue certification of the results of the analysis of this specific batch of masks purchased by the Ministry of Health .

It also requests from Health the distribution and delivery agreements to the autonomous communities of the masks and the documentation received from the regions on the execution of the withdrawal order.

In its complaint, the CESM denounces that by order of Health, defective FFP2 masks were distributed in hospital centers during the hardest weeks of the pandemic.

The case against Illa for an alleged crime against the workers began with a complaint before the Supreme Court, which considered it premature to act against the then minister.

At that time, the Supreme Court prosecutor opposed investigating Illa and argued that the plaintiffs attributed criminal responsibility to her "clearly diffuse and generic" and not because of her "specific intervention" in the events, but "in attention" to her charge, and concluded that the complaint "does not provide sufficient evidence to justify another decision other than filing it."