Francisco Vallejo, president of the Agency for Innovation and Development of Andalusia (IDEA) of the Board between 2004 and 2009 as Minister of Innovation, Science and Business, has requested the granting of a partial pardon regarding the custodial sentence in the sentence imposed in the case of the ERE: 7 years and one day in prison and absolute disqualification for a period of 18 years and one day as the author of a crime of prevarication in medial competition with a crime of embezzlement. He is the first Andalusian leader, after former president José Antonio Griñán, who comes to this route after the Supreme Court ruling that, in his case, confirms that of the Seville Court of November 2019.
The Supreme Court ruling that confirms the convictions of Griñán and Chaves by the ERE: “They acted with knowledge of the irregularities”
Vallejo precisely left the Board when Griñán became president of the Board at the end of April 2009. Before, with Manuel Chaves as president, he was the Minister of Public Works (1994-2000) and Health (2000-2004). According to the Supreme Court, Vallejo and the rest of the defendants convicted of the crime of embezzlement “were aware of the irregularities that were taking place in the management of the funds and made it possible by omission to continue reproducing the illicit procedure.” In particular, Vallejo “knew that the IFA/IDEA was acting as a mere payer for the aid and subsidies granted” by the Ministry of Employment. The Supreme Court rejected his cassation appeal, among many other reasons, because his argument that he exercised political functions and was not responsible for carrying out a technical-legal control, acting in the confidence of the legality of the text that was submitted for his approval, “conceals the pretense of offloading the responsibility of what happened on the technicians who intervened in the budget preparation process”.
In contrast, the private vote of two Supreme Court magistrates, in which Vallejo’s family supports a good part of his writing, has questioned the convictions for embezzlement of Griñán, Vallejo, former counselor Carmen Martínez, and Miguel Ángel Serrano and Jesús María Rodríguez . The Court of Seville, both said, chose to attribute an eventual fraud to cement their conviction for embezzlement knowing that they did not have sufficient evidence to opt for direct fraud. He did it, they reproach, “knowing that he lacks a minimally consistent proof of charge to attribute a direct fraud to the defendants outside the Ministry of Employment.” This dissenting vote even speaks of a “laconic and unmotivated legal basis on the authorship” of these defendants on the crime of embezzlement.
The clemency petition emphasizes that the existence of two votes against Vallejo’s conviction “denotes that there were ‘doubts’ ‘in the formation of the conviction of the Court as a collegiate body that must adopt a decision“. ”The forcefulness of the arguments reflected in the dissenting opinion cannot be ignored when it comes to ruling on the granting of pardon“, highlights the brief presented, ”in the judicial conviction of the Court, as a collegiate body, there is no evidence of ‘certainty ‘ of the crime nor the origin of his conviction” according to “the contradictory and conflicting positions of its components”. ”We honestly believe that cases like this show that the legal regulation in this sense “suffers from deficiencies and ultimately allows situations that are unfair in our opinion, such as the confirmation of the sentence pronounced by the difference of a single vote”.
“Desocialization” with jail
“Can it be affirmed that there have been no doubts within the Court regarding the guilt and the origin of the custodial sentence imposed on D. Francisco Vallejo regarding the crime of embezzlement when two of the five intervening magistrates have argued and signed with their individual votes the non-existence of said guilt and the inadmissibility of the conviction?” asks the family of the former counselor, who has been “convicted by a small majority expressive of the doubtful origin of a conviction that must be pronounced beyond beyond reasonable doubt.”
The brief also argues that “it is generally considered that the passage of more than 8 years gives an extraordinary character to the delay and therefore to the damage that this entails.” Vallejo’s family, who was summoned to the trial in 2013, says that “the very long period of time in Don Francisco Vallejo’s life during which the processing and prosecution of the case has been delayed is undeniable, and this has been translated in an intense suffering for him and his entire family, sufficient reason to consider that the suffering and anguish endured in all this time stands as sufficient to fulfill the retributive purpose of the sentence.”
According to the brief, “the execution of the custodial sentence at the present time would only serve to separate him from his family, from his professional activity at a difficult age for employability purposes, thus also transferring to third parties the negative consequences of compliance with the penalty and radically moving away said fulfillment of the constitutionally foreseen purpose. Thus, in the present case, compliance with the sentence imposed would become a pure tool of desocialization, thus presenting the pardon as an adequate correction mechanism” since its granting “does not derive negative or harmful consequences for anyone” .
Vallejo is currently 65 years old, the father of 5 children (two of them minors), a lawyer and economist by profession, and graduated in Law and Business Administration and Management in Madrid. “The execution of the custodial sentence would cause minors damage that would be irreparable,” he argues in his brief. “The long judicial process, together with the parallel trial suffered in the media as a result of the extraordinary media coverage of the case, has generated and continues to generate undeniable suffering that has entailed significant pain, anguish and suffering both at a personal and family level. , with very serious effects and consequences in the professional field”, he explains.
“A life dedicated to public service”
The brief insists that “the prison sentence for which a pardon is requested is unnecessary”, adding that its granting “avoids the complete desocialization of a person who is fully integrated into society, who is close to retirement from work, with the consequent separation from their family, professional and social environment, with the painful consequences and suffering that derive from it, especially for their minor children.”
Vallejo’s family in writing that, starting in 1985, he decided to focus his career on public service. A “professional and personal journey, which for twenty-eight years he has developed in a solid, firm and committed manner, always guided by the defense of public interests and social welfare. Throughout his long career at the service of citizens, Don Francisco Vallejo Serrano was always an example of honesty, trustworthiness and probity. A public servant who put general interests before his professional career, devoting all his life, effort and intelligence to improving the lives of his fellow citizens in those public tasks and responsibilities that, due to his merit, capacity and efficiency, were entrusted to him throughout weather”.
“A life dedicated to public service, to the defense of the general interest, for his honesty and personal integrity, and for the unnecessary execution of the prison sentence imposed in the sentence,” he highlights. The brief finally highlights that “the public and social relevance” of the ERE cause is undeniable and “the exposure” to which Vallejo “and the other defendants have been subjected for a decade” “Despite all this, they have maintained, at all times, an attitude of absolute respect towards the Administration of Justice and other public servants, actively collaborating with the judging bodies.”
The former counselor, during the trial, said that “nobody” warned him that IDEA could not pay the socio-labour aid managed by the Ministry of Employment and that, in no case, “never” gave any order in relation to the aid. Vallejo defended that IFA-IDEA was “an organ of the Board that was attached to a council but that provided a service to all”, for which he chose to avoid “one more confrontation with them”, alluding to the Employment Council. “It was decided to continue providing this work for Employment”, he commented. “IFA never paid more than the money it had”, he also said, explaining that there was a time when Employment did not send enough money to IFA-IDEA, generating a budget deficit but “it was a debt of the Board with the Board” because “IDEA had no problem” in that sense.