Sentenza 28 novembre 2001, n.335/2001

Spagna. Audiencia provincial de Madrid. Sentencia No. 335/2001, de 28 de noviembre 2001.

(Pre-trial Proceedings No. 2663/84, Investigative Court No. 21- Madrid. Court Record No. 186/95)

JUDGMENT

PROVINCIAL COURT OF MADRID

[…]

HEARING in public and oral proceedings before the Fourth Section of this Provincial Court for the case No. 2663/84, Court Record No. 186/95, originating from Investigative Court No. 21 of Madrid, filed ex officio for the offences of unlawful assemblyillegal association, failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences, simulation of crime, false accusation, false imprisonment, and encroachment, against MARÍA VICTORIA DE BLAS ARRIBAS, 44 years old (born on 7th of June 1957), daughter of Felix and Fuencisla, native of Segovia and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which she was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th to the 21st of November 1988; against VIRGILIO CASTELLANOS SAIZ, 42 years old (born on 25th of January 1959), son of Virgilio and Florencia, native of Cuenca and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which he was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th to the 21st of November 1988; against ENRIQUE AYUSO FERRER, 46 years old, (born on the 20th of June 1955), son of Enrique and Antonia, native of and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which he was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th of November to 10th of December1988, when he presented a bank guarantee for the amount of 4,000,000 pesetas, the cancellation of which was dictated by court order on the 27th of July 2001; against MARÍA ANTONIA NAVARRO CASTILLO, 46 years old (born on the 14th of June 1955), daughter of Jorge and Orosia, native of Calatayud (Zaragoza) and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which she was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th of November to 10th of December1988, when she presented a bank guarantee for the amount of 4,000,000 pesetas, the cancellation of which was dictated by court order on the 2nd of July 2001; ALFONSO MARÍN RODRÍGUEZ, 51 years old (born on 4th of January 1950), son of Eugenio and J. Soledad, native of Puertollano (Ciudad Real) and resident in Torrejón de Ardoz (Madrid), with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, after presenting bail of 250,000 pesetas, the refund of which was dictated by court order on the 30th of July 2001; against MARÍA LUISA PÉREZ AGUILAR, 51 years old, (born on 19th of July 1950), daughter of Adolfo and Luisa, native of Bilvis de Jara (Toledo) and resident in Torrejón de Ardoz (Madrid) with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which she was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th of November to 9th of December1988, when she presented a bank guarantee for the amount of 3,000,000 pesetas, the cancellation of which was dictated by court order on the 2nd of July 2001, against ARTURO REGUERA ARDANZA, 38 years old (born on 25th of October 1962), son of Julián and Mª Angeles, native of Bilbao and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which he was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th of November to 10th of December1988, where he presented a bank guarantee for the amount of 3,000,000 pesetas, the cancellation of which was dictated by court order on the 27th of July 2001; against MARÍA DEL CARMEN MUÑOZ ROSAL, 38 years old (born on 15th of November 1962), daughter of Francisco and Asunción, native of Madrid and resident in Málaga, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which she was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th to the 21st of November 1988; against ENRIQUE COLL LLOPIS, 37 years old (born on 16th of January 1964), son of José María and Asunción, native of Madrid and resident in Málaga, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which he was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th to the 22nd of November 1988; against MANUEL RUIZ SERRANO, 55 years old (born on 17th of November 1945), son of Manuel and María, native of Chiclana (Cadiz) and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case; against VALENTÍN FERNÁNDEZ-TUBAU RODES, 43 years old (born on 17th of August 1958), son of Valentín and Mª Angeles, native of Barcelona and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which he was previously deprived of liberty from the 22nd to the 23rd of February 1990; against SANTIAGO VADILLO ACEVES, 43 years old (born on 9th of February 1958), son of Santiago and María, native and resident in Alcalá de Guadaira (Seville), with a criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case, for which he was previously deprived of liberty from the 20th of November to 10th of December 1988, where he presented a bank guarantee for the amount of 4,000,000 pesetas, the cancellation of which was dictated by court order on the 12th of July 2001; against JUDITH FRANCAS ABANCO, 38 years old, (born on the 14th of September 1963), daughter of Luis and Marta, native of and resident in Barcelona, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case; against MONTSERRAT AGUILERA MARTÍN, 40 years old, (born on 21st of January 1961), daughter of Manuel and Julia, native of and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case; against JOSÉ MANUEL VILLAREJO PÉREZ, 50 years old (born on 4th of August 1951), son of Pedro and Angela, native of El Carpio (Córdoba) and resident in Boadilla del Monte (Madrid), with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case; against MARÍA BELÉN MARTÍN GARCÍA, 41 years old (born on 22nd of January 1960), daughter of Gregorio and Rogelia, native of and resident in Madrid, with no criminal record, and in pre-trial release for this case; the parties being the Public Prosecutor, represented by the Hon. Carlos Ladrón de Cegama, and said defendants, represented by the following Attorneys […]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

ONE.- In accordance with art. 793.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a number of pre-trial issues were raised by Counsel for the defendants at the outset of the trial, which were resolved by court order on the 4th of April 2001. The order held that:
“The pre-trial issues set out in paragraphs one, two, three, six, eight, nine, and ten are DISMISSED.
The pre-trial issue set out in paragraph four is ALLOWED IN PART, in the terms expressed in said paragraph, and in consequence, it is hereby agreed to trace the actions to the investigative stage and to the moment immediately prior to the conclusion of the pre-trial proceedings, for the purpose of taking a statement from Manuel Ruiz Serrano, in his capacity as a defendant, in reference to the facts in paragraph G), subparagraph b), of the Public Prosecutor’s indictment. For these purposes, there shall be separate proceedings, which will include the relevant statements taken from the individuals in question.
The pre-trial issue set out in paragraph seven is ALLOWED IN PART, in the terms expressed in said paragraph, and the totality of the telephone tappings in respect of it are hereby declared non-admissible.
The pre-trial issue set out in paragraph five is ALLOWED IN PART, and in consequence, it is hereby declared that THE PRESUMED CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY HAS LAPSED FOR HAVING PASSED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WANT OF PROSECUTION in respect of the offences and the defendants as follows:
1) Offence of threats in subparagraph a) of fact B), for the defendants José Manuel Villarejo Pérez and Heber Carl Jentzsch, and the offence of impersonation of a public officer in subparagraph b) of fact B), for José Manuel Villarejo Pérez.
2) Offence of threats in subparagraph a) of fact C), for the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín.
3) Offences against the Public Treasury in subparagraph a) of fact D), for the defendants Carmen Muñoz Rosal, Enrique Coll Llopis, and Heber Carl Jentzsch; and in subparagraph b), for Valentín Fernández Tubau and Heber Carl Jentzsch; and in subparagraph d), for Heber Carl Jentzsch.
4) Offences against freedom and security in the workplace of subparagraph a) of fact E), for the defendants Mª Luisa Pérez Aguilar, Alfonso Marín Rodríguez, and Virgilio Castellanos Saiz; in subparagraph c), for Enrique Ayuso Ferrer, Arturo Reguera Ardanza, Enrique Coll Llopis, and Mª Victoria de Blas Arribas; in subparagraphs d) and e), for Santiago Vadillo Acebes; in subparagraph f), for Valentín Fernández Tubau; in subparagraph g), for Judith Francas Abanco; and in subparagraphs b) and h), as well as those previously listed for Heber Carl Jentzsch.
5) Offence of Encroachment, Offence against Public Health, and gross negligence in subparagraph a) of fact F), for Mª Luisa Pérez Aguilar, Alfonso Marín Rodríguez, and Heber Carl Jentzsch; offence of encroachment, offence against Public Health and petty offence of negligence in subparagraph b) of fact F), for Heber Carl Jentzsch.
6) Offence against Public Health in subparagraph f) of fact G), for Heber Carl Jentzsch; and the offences of encroachment in the subparagraphs g), h), i), and j) of fact G) for Heber Carl Jentzsch.
As a consequence of those offences against the Public Treasury and freedom and security in the workplace that are deemed to have lapsed for having passed Statute of Limitation want of prosecution, notifications must be served on the relevant Administrative bodies as appropriate”.

TWO. – The Public Prosecutor, in his final findings, described the facts by dividing them into different paragraphs –A) to G)-, further dividing each into subparagraphs, and classifying them in the following way:
Those in paragraph A) as an offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association in accordance with art. 173.1, paragraphs 1 and subsidiarily 2, and art. 174.2 of the 1973 Penal Code (P.C.), in relation to the offences of coercion (art. 496), fraud (art. 528 and 529.5 of the 1973 P.C. or 248, 249, and 250.6 of the 1995 P.C.), against the Public Treasury (art. 349 bis and subsequent articles of the 1973 P.C. or, when applicable, of art. 305 and subsequent articles of the 1995 P.C.), against freedom and security in the workplace (art. 499 bis or art. 311 of the 1995 P.C.), encroachment (art. 321 of the 1973 P.C. or art. 403 of the 1995 P.C.), injuries (art. 420 of the 1973 P.C. or art. 147 of the 1995 P.C.), threats (art. 493 of the 1973 P.C. or art. 169 of the 1995 P.C.), illegal impersonation of a public officer (art. 320 of the 1973 P.C. or art. 402 of the 1995 P.C.), false accusation (art. 325 of the 1973 P.C. or art. 456.1-2 and 2, in relation to articles 237, 240, 33, and 13 of the 1995 P.C.), false imprisonment (art. 480 of the 1973 P.C. or art. 163 of the 1995 P.C.) and failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences (art. 338 bis or 450 of the 1995 P.C.). All the listed offences are contained in the different paragraphs, which form the substratum of the offence in paragraph A), the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association, and which is considered to be more beneficial than if the New Penal Code were opted for; and when applicable, in articles 515.1 (and alternatively 515.3) and 517.1 and 2 of the New P.C., which are listed as per above, and which would be applicable should it be deemed that those of the Old P.C. are not applicable.
Those in paragraph B) as the failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences, envisaged in art. 450 of the 1995 P.C., which is considered more favourable than art. 338 bis of the repealed penal text.
Those in paragraph C) as the offence of simulation of a crime: in this case art. 457 of the 1995 P.C. is applicable because it is considered more favourable; another of false accusation, in accordance with the terms of art. 456.1-1 and 2, in relation with articles 237, 240, 33, and 13, all from the 1995 P.C., for the same reason; and the offence of false imprisonment, envisaged in art. 163.1 of the 1995 P.C., for the same reason. Art. 77 of the1995 P.C. shall be applied to these offences.
Those in paragraph D) without legal specification, since they have been declassified or have not been prosecuted by the Court.
Those in paragraph E) without legal specification, since they lack indictment and they have not been prosecuted by the Court.
Those in paragraph F) without legal specification, since they have been declassified or have not been prosecuted by the Court.
Those in paragraph G), subparagraph b), as the offence of encroachment in art. 403, first subsection of the first paragraph, 1995 P.C., which is considered more favourable than the repealed art. 321 P.C.
The perpetration of the facts in paragraph A are attributed to the defendants Arturo Reguera Ardanza, María del Carmen Muñoz Rosal, Santiago Vadillo Acebes, María Victoria de Blas Arribas, Valentín Fernández-Tubau Rodes, Virgilio Castellanos Saiz, Manuel Ruiz Serrano, Enrique Ayuso Ferrer, María Antonia Navarro Castillo, María Montserrat Aguilera Martín, Alfonso Marín Rodríguez, and María Luisa Pérez Aguilar.
The perpetration of the facts in paragraph B), subparagraph a), are attributed to the defendant María Montserrat Aguilera Martín.
The perpetration of the facts in paragraph C) are attributed to the defendants: of the offence of the simulation of a crime, José Manuel Villarejo (art. 14.3); and of the offence of false accusation, José Manuel Villarejo (art. 14.3); and the offence of false imprisonment, José Manuel Villarejo (art. 14, 3º).
The perpetration of the facts in paragraphs D) and E) were not attributed to any defendants because they had been declassified or had lapsed for having passed statute of limitationswant of prosecution.
Equally, the perpetration of the facts in paragraph F) has not been determined, since they have lapsed for having passed statute of limitation want of prosecution.
The perpetration of the facts in paragraph G), subparagraph b), are attributed to the accused Manuel Ruiz Serrano.
The aggravating factor of repeat offending has been requested in respect of Santiago Vadillo (para. 15 of art. 10), regarding the offence in paragraph A).
Equally, the following punishments have been considered:
For offence A), 3 months’ imprisonment and other accessory sentences, to be imposed on each one of the following defendants: Arturo Reguera Ardanza, María del Carmen Muñoz Rosal, Santiago Vadillo Acebes, María Victoria de Blas Arribas, Valentín Fernández-Tubau Rodes, Virgilio Castellanos Saiz, Manuel Ruiz Serrano, Enrique Ayuso Ferrer, María Antonia Navarro Castillo, María Montserrat Aguilera Martín, Alfonso Marín Rodríguez, and María Luisa Pérez Aguilar.
The dissolution of the Church of Scientology in all its forms, present or future, was also applied for.
For the offences in paragraph B), subparagraph a), the sentence of a twelve month fine, with a daily rate of 1,000 pesetas, with the subsidiary personal responsibility envisaged in art. 53 of the 1995 P.C., to be imposed on Montserrat Aguilera Martín.
For the offences in paragraph C), the sentence of an eight month fine, with a daily rate of 1,000 pesetas, with the subsidiary personal responsibility envisaged in art. 53 of the 1995 P.C., for the offence of simulation of a crime; a one year prison sentence and a 12 month fine, with a daily rate of 1,000 pesetas, with the subsidiary personal responsibility envisaged in art. 53 of the 1995 P.C., for the offence of false accusation; and a 4 year prison sentence, with disqualification as a policeman and deprivation of the right to vote for the length of the conviction, for the offence of false imprisonment, all of which are imposed on the defendant José Manuel Villarejo Pérez.
For the offence in paragraph G), subparagraph b), the sentence of an eight month fine, with a daily rate of 1,000 pesetas, with the subsidiary personal responsibility envisaged in art. 53 of the 1995 P.C., to be imposed on Manuel Ruiz Serrano.
For the offences in paragraphs D), E), and F), no punishment has been requested.
In terms of civil liability and for the facts in paragraph C), damages for the amount of 1,000,000 pesetas have been requested in favour of Pedro Lerma Gamez, as well as any interest due under art. 921 of the Civil Procedure Code, to be paid by the defendant José Manuel Villarejo Pérez, in respect of which the subsidiary civil responsibility shall lie with the Church of Scientology.

THREE.- Defence Counsel for all the defendants, during the closing speeches, requested their full acquittal in the most favourable terms.

II. PROVEN FACTS
A) The so-called “Church of Scientology” was founded in Los Angeles (USA) in 1954 and originates from the writings and doctrines of L. Ronald Hubbard.
This doctrine, in accordance with the publications that have divulged it, and specifically: “Dianetics: The modern science of mental health” and “What is Scientology?”, started with Dianetics, which is considered an organised science of thought, and focused on ensuring that people reach the “clear” state, which coincides with that of a person without repressions and with self-determinism. The dynamic principle of existence is called survival. This is subdivided into four dynamics: One: Individual Impulse. Two: Individual Impulse towards survival via procreation. Three: Individual Impulse towards survival through a group. And Four: Individual Impulse toward the maximum survival of all mankind, which constitutes the absolute goal: immortality, or infinite survival. Subsequently, L. Ronald Hubbard developed his doctrine and created the foundation of what he called the “Religion of Scientology”, upon discovering that man was not only mind and body, but a spiritual being, and established “Thetan” as the source of all creation and life itself. Thus the four initial dynamics of Dianetics were expanded into four additional ones: Five: Impulse to survive as living beings and with their help. Six: Impulse to survive as a physical universe. Seven: the spiritual dynamic, considered as the source of life. And Eight: Impulse towards infinite existence, also commonly known as God, the Supreme Being, or Creator. From that point on, Dianetics became a branch of Scientology.
L. Ronald Hubbard also developed a method for the application of the principles of “Scientology”, focused on improving the mind’s functions and rehabilitating the spirit’s potential, and this is called “auditing”. This technique is carried out by a person trained by the organisation, who receives the name of “auditor”, whereas the receiving person receives the name of “pre-clear”. This technology is essentially based on communication, and specifically on the formulation of a series of questions and instructions designed not only to locate the areas of discontent or spiritual difficulties present in their lives, but also to discover the origin of the discontent. The results of the auditing sessions and the subject’s other vital information that is subjected to it, are recorded and documented in files called “folders”. The auditor is subject to a code of conduct called “Code of the Auditor’s Code”, which includes the duty and obligation never to use the secrets revealed by a pre-clear in an auditing session (paragraph 22: “I promise never to use the secrets revealed by a pre-clear in a session for personal punishment or benefit.”). To carry out the auditing, the auditor uses an instrument called the “E-meter”, which according to the Scientologists measures the state of, or change in, the spirit of a person. They consider that any changes that take place in the mind influence a small flow of electrical current emitted by the E-meter, thus causing the dial to move, thus indicating to the auditor the location of the “charge”, which can be defined as the energy or the dynamic force that is derived from painful or disturbing experiences.
L. Ronald Hubbard, in the Sixties, came to the conclusion that the residues of drugs and other toxins are stored in the fat tissues of the body, and remain there for years after ingestion, for which he formulated the so-called “purification programme”, which consists of a combination of exercise, vitamins, nutrition, and the use of sauna. This elimination of drugs and toxins is considered necessary to be able to advance as a spiritual being, and therefore it is carried out before being subjected to the auditing technique.
Together with the auditing, which allows the individual to perceive that something has happened, there is another technique that enables us to understand the “why”, and which is part of the training. This is carried out by means of many courses, which consist of books, publications, films, and conferences, all of which are provided under the control of a course supervisor.
These courses, which can be counted by the dozen, are not free, and must be paid for: some courses were charged at over 2,000,000 pesetas.
The auditings was ere also not free. In 1983, it is recorded that 12,500 pesetas were paid per session. In certain instances more than 1,000,000 pesetas in total are thought to have been paid, and some may have been charged at over 3,000,000.
Finally, the so-called purification programmes must also be classified as onerous. In 1988, amounts up to 55,775 pesetas were paid in respect of this service.
The Scientology organisation also possesses an internal code of sanctions, which includes four different categories of crimes and offences: errors, minor offences, crimes, and serious crimes. The errors are omissions or non-intentional minor mistakes. The minor offences include: non-compliance, rudeness, and insubordination, errors that cause financial or trade losses, and a long list of circumstances, such as infringements of the Code of the Auditor, failure to appear before an Evidence Committee as a witness or interested party, etc. The crimes consist of: robbery; criminal mutilation; damaging, flagrant, and repeated infringements of the codes that may cause important disorders – it includes a long list of said types of conduct, such as endangering Scientology, receiving personal fees for auditing external pre-clears while one is a staff member, embezzlement, receiving commissions from businessmen, resale of the organisation’s materials for a personal profit, etc. The final category consists of the so-called serious crimes, which essentially involve publicly abandoning Scientology or committing suppressive acts.
Equally, the justice system has four types of main bodies: the Ethics Court, the Investigation Committee, the Chaplain’s Court, and finally, the Evidence Committee, which is summoned to judge the most serious matters.
The worst sanction that is imposed is the expulsion from the organisation, which is known as “Suppressive Declaration”.
According to one of the aforementioned publications, Narconon (which means no drugs) began in 1966 when a prison drug addict, William Benítez, managed to free himself from his addiction by means of the L. Ronald Hubbard book, “The Fundamentals grounds of Tthought”. Subsequently, the programme named “Narconon” expanded, based on the L. Ronald Hubbard method, which is divided into three phases: 1) withdrawal from drugs, which is carried out through suitable nutrition, vitamins, and the care of Narconon’s experienced staff; 2) a course of therapeutic training routines aimed at increasing the person’s capacity to cope with life and communicate with others; 3) detoxification process, which has the aim of cleaning the body of drug residues and other toxic substances, by means of an exercise, sauna, and nutritional supplement programme known as the “Effective purification programme”; and 4) Narconon improved learning course, designed so that the individual acquires the capacity to study and retain knowledge, as well as the capacity to identify and overcome study barriers. Later on, four more courses were included, until finally the course named “The Way to path of Hhappiness” was developed, which is a guide for the attainment of true happiness in life.
The so-called Church of Scientology continued to expand in different countries in Europe and eventually reached Spain, where they incorporated several associations, all of which were linked by the doctrine that originates from its founder. Equally, several associations were founded for the rehabilitation of drug addicts, in accordance with the technique that had also been developed by L. Ronald Hubbard for this purpose.
The following associations and centres were incorporated in Spain:
1) Dianetics Civil Association, based in Madrid, calle Montera, No. 20. It was incorporated on the 18th of February 1981. According to its articles of association, the purposes of this association were of a cultural nature, and had a specific technique for the presentation, dissemination, research, and improvement of educational and corporate management. Two of its five founder members were the defendants Enrique Ayuso Ferrer and Mª Antonia Navarro Castillo, both over eighteen and with no criminal record. Mª Antonia Navarro was appointed president in the general meeting held on the 21st of April 1983, and was ratified in her post at the meeting held on the 1st of February 1984. Enrique Ayuso held this post in 1981 and 1982, and was also appointed president in the general meeting of 26th April 1988, and was ratified in this post at the annual general meeting of 21st of August 1989. In the general meeting of 21st of April 1983, Montserrat Aguilera Martín, over eighteen and with no criminal record, was appointed vice-president, and was ratified in this post at the general meeting of 1st of February 1984, and she went on to hold the presidency by agreement adopted by the general meeting of 22nd of May 1984, and was ratified in that post in the general meeting of 25th of May 1985. In 1988, the post of vice-president fell upon the defendant Arturo Reguera Ardanza, over eighteen and with no criminal record. Equally, the defendant Mª Carmen Muñoz Rosal, over eighteen and with no criminal record, held the post of secretary between 1985 and 1986. Mª Victoria de Blas Arribas, over eighteen and with no criminal record, provided services as the co-ordinator of the seven dynamics that were integrated in the organisational chart of the association, and was appointed treasurer in April 1988. Finally, Manuel Ruiz Serrano, over eighteen and with no criminal record, was attached to this entity as auditing supervisor from November 1981 to June 1988.
2) Civil Association of Personal Improvement based in Madrid, calle Cambrils, No. 19. It was incorporated in 1986 and the founder members were the defendants Alfonso Marín Rodríguez, Virgilio Castellanos Saiz, and Mª Luisa Pérez Aguilar, over eighteen and with no criminal records.
They all provided their services to this association by spreading the Scientology doctrine and the writings of Hubbard. Furthermore, Alfonso Marín Rodríguez held the post of president, Virgilio Castellanos Saiz, the post of vice-president, and Mª Luisa Pérez the post of secretary, as appears from the records of the general meeting of 2nd February 1987. From the ordinary general meeting of 25th of March 1991, it can be inferred that Alfonso Marín and Mª Luisa Pérez continued to hold these posts in 1991.
3) Spanish Association for Social Improvements based in Madrid, calle Alberto Aguilera, No. 58. It was incorporated on 7th of February 1985. According to its articles of association, the aims of the association were of a cultural and social nature, and specifically: -The contribution to the improvement of social areas with problems such as illiteracy, drugs, and delinquency; -the strengthening of education and the contribution to the eradication of its related problems, -the achievement of a healthier social environment and the strengthening of techniques and methods to help people and their surroundings and other individual social groups, to improve their present conditions. One of the four founder members was the defendant Valentín Fernández-Tubau Rodes, over eighteen and with no criminal record, who was appointed president in the general meeting of 26th April 1985. This defendant presided the remaining general meetings until 1st March 1987, when a new board of directors was appointed. The defendant Santiago Vadillo Acebes, over eighteen and convicted by sentence dated 25th of September 1984 and made final on the 18th of October of the same year, handed down by Investigative Court No. 5 of Madrid, for the continuing offence of falsification of commercial document and for the offence of fraud, to 6 months and 1 day imprisonment sentence and a fine of 30,000 pesetas with 15 days of arrest in substitution for the first, and a 30,000 peseta fine with 15 days of arrest in substitution for the second, was appointed vice-president in the general meeting of the 22nd of April 1988, thus becoming president by agreement of the general meeting on 9th of December 1989.
4) Civil Association Retreat based in Cercedilla (Madrid), paseo de Murube, No. 11. It was incorporated on the 23rd of October 1983. According to its articles of association, the specific aims of the association were: – the assistance and help to all persons affected by the serious harm caused by consumption of toxic drugs in any form; – the rehabilitation and reinsertion into society of these persons. None of the defendants are among the six founder members. Subsequently, the defendant Santiago Vadillo Acebes was appointed president of this association in the general meetings on the 6th of March 1986, the 14th of February 1987, and the 19th of January 1988.
5) Droganón Association Los Molinos. It was incorporated on the 26th of March 1984 and based in Los Molinos (Madrid, calle del Miño, s/n. According to its articles of association, the specific purposes of the organisation were: – the assistance and help to all persons affected by the serious harm caused by the consumption of toxic drugs in any form; – the rehabilitation and reinsertion into society of these persons. One of its seven founder members was the defendant Valentín Fernández-Tubau, who at the same time formed part of a management commission, which was created for the constitution and registration of the association. In a general meeting on the 26th of February 1985 the members of the board of directors were appointed, and none of the defendants were among them.
Other associations were also created and based in Madrid, such as the “New Era Association”, and “Way to Path of Happiness Foundation”. Equally, branches were opened in other provincial capitals (Barcelona, Bilbao, Zaragoza, among others), and new detoxification centres for substance abusers (Narconón Mediterranean, Narconón Tablada, Narconón North) were also opened.
The Dianetics Civil Association, with head office in Madrid, did not file a tax report for corporate taxes in respect of the fiscal years from 1983 to 1987. The Droganón Los Molinos entity has not paid the corporate taxes and VAT in respect of the fiscal periods 1986 and 1987 to the Public Treasury. The Civil Retreat Association also did not file any tax report for the corporate taxes and VAT in respect of the fiscal periods 1986 and 1987. Finally the Spanish Association of Social Improvement did not file the tax report for the corporate taxes in respect of the fiscal periods 1985, 1986, and 1987.
All the associations mentioned above, to which the defendants belonged, carried out their activities and formalised collaboration contracts without registering in the Social Security.
B) John Paul Caban, scientologist, resident in Europe since 1964, had achieved the title of “Ambassador of Scientology and Dianetics”, and on the 14th of December 1982 was declared suppressive by the Scientology organisation. This Declaration was brought about by virtue of the accusation of a series of “serious or high-level” crimes, such as: organising separatist groups that employed Scientology practices and materials and perverted them; infiltrating into a Scientology group, organisation, and staff to agitate, protest, and instigate hostile forces; attempting to destroy an area of Scientology, and reneging from the legitimate authority for the attainment of personal profit, personal power, or the “salvation” of Scientology.
John Paul Caban, prior to this date, had openly confronted the Scientology directors and the organisation itself, by understanding, together with other dissidents, that the philosophy and doctrine of its founder had not been properly applied. This idea spread among several executives of the Church of Scientology, and a schism took place, followed by the incorporation of a new association, named the “Universal Church of Scientology”, which was founded pursuant to public deed dated 14-3-1983. Among others, John Paul Caban, Pedro Luis Lerma Gómez, and the former’s spouse at the time, Mª Luisa de las Virtudes Pons Díaz, were its founding members. This organisation took the principles established and developed by L. Ronald Hubbard as their fundamental beliefs. John Paul Caban also attempted to patent Scientology trademarks and symbols.
At 3:00 P.M. on the 29th of May 1984, the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín, together with a Scientologist named Kurt Weilland and the defendant José Manuel Villarejo Pérez, over eighteen and with no criminal record, travelled to the Madrid-Barajas airport in order to collect Per Ake Gardstrom, also a Scientologist, who arrived in a flight from Denmark, and for the purpose of delivering documentation related to the organisation’s patents and trademarks.
After holding a meeting with Per Ake, the defendants left the airport, and the Mr. Ake returned to Copenhagen together with Kurt Weilland.
For the duration of Mr. Ake’s stay at the airport, Mª Luisa de las Virtudes Pons Díaz, the then spouse of John Paul Caban, approached Kurt Weilland, and a short conversation took place between them.
C) Pedro Lerma Gómez, after achieving his own rehabilitation in a Narconón centre in France, founded an association in Spain with the name Narconón on 22-4-82, the purposes of which included the following: the provision of assistance to people of all conditions, affected by the serious damage caused by substance addiction in all its forms; the rehabilitation and reinsertion into society of these people. The method followed for the rehabilitation of drug addicts was substantially the same as that developed by the founder, L. Ronald Hubbard (sauna, supply of vitamins, courses, and even auditing), which involved using the technology pertaining to the secular centres of the Scientology organisation and destined to the rehabilitation of substance abusers. This caused serious problems with the latter organisation: said problems were of a fundamentally financial nature and stemmed from the use of patents and trademarks, as well as from the fact that he intended to act independently and outside of the control of the organisation.
As a consequence of these tensions, several Scientology members known as “missionaries” came to Spain, in order to achieve the reintegration of Pedro Lerma and his Drug addicts’ rehabilitation centre into the organisation, a task in which they failed.
Subsequently, and when one of the previously mentioned missionaries came to Madrid, Juan Carlos Borrallo Rebolledo visited the Dianetics offices, located in calle Montera, no. 20. He was a young man who had left the Narconón centre, directed by Pedro Lerma, but who wished to continue receiving the services provided by Dianetics. After subjecting himself to an auditing session and to an the “restoration of ethics handling” with the previously mentioned missionary, Juan Carlos Borrallo decided to confess his participation in the perpetration of several crimes of theft, including the removal of several “E-Meters” from that Dianetics office.
The police pre-trail investigative proceedings for two of the theft offences to which J. Carlos Borrallo admitted participating, were carried out in the Ventas Police station.
The defendant, José Manuel Villarejo Pérez, was at that time employed by the Scientology organisation for the investigation of improper use of trademarks and patents. During the course of a meeting that was held in the office of the lawyers that he had hired, he was asked for advice – in view of his position as a public officer of the National Police Force on leave of absence- about what procedure should be followed to carry out a self-incrimination (referring to that of Juan Carlos Borrallo). The aforementioned defendant, having learned the location where the events had taken place, referred them to the Ventas police station. Afterwards he contacted a chief inspector who was a friend, expressing an interest in the result; the chief inspector confirmed that this person had indeed committed some crimes.
In Juan Carlos Borrallo’s appearance at the Ventas Police station, on 8-5-84, and after describing the way in which he took possession of the “E-meters” which were located in the Dianetics office in calle Montera, No. 20, he identified various persons who had accompanied him, mentioning their names, but explaining that they had never entered the building. He also stated that the deeds had been perpetrated under instructions from Pedro Lerma Gómez, the director at that time of the drugs rehabilitation centre where he worked.
The defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín, at the insistence of the missionary who had audited Juan Carlos Borrallo, reported the disappearance of the “E-meters” at the Ventas Police station.
The events related to the removal of the devices belonging to Dianetics, are recorded in court proceedings No. 4/85 of Investigative Court no. 21 of Madrid, which reached the verdict expressed by Section 16 of the Provincial Court of Madrid dated 31-10-90, stating: “We acquit Pedro Lerma Gómez, José Luis Díaz López, and Juan Carlos Borrallo Rebolledo, from the offence of theft for which they have been accused in these proceedings, the first two persons in the provisional conclusions and the latter in the final conclusions, thus leaving without effect the precautionary measures that were agreed in relation to the same; court costs are established ex officio.” They also agreed to take several testimonies.
D) The defendant Manuel Ruiz Serrano conducted, in 1986, auditings in the Narconón Los Molinos Centre.

III. LEGAL GROUNDS

ONE.- As stated in the factual background to this resolution, on the 4th of April of this year, a court decision was dictated resolving many of the matters previously raised by the parties involved. This court decision, and the detailed explanations made by the Court in sessions dated the 17th and 18th of the same month, resolve the allegations relative to the infringement of fundamental rights and trial procedure expressed by the defence in its statement. It is therefore unnecessary to make any further comment on this matter, except on the particular points relevant to the merits of the case, which will be duly dealt with.
The only remark that should be made is that, due to the lapse for having passed statute of limitation want of prosecution, the presumed penal responsibility of the defendant, Judith Francas Abanco, has expired. The proceedings against the remainder of the defendants continue. Nevertheless, and although her name has been included in the heading of this resolution as one of the defendants, it is considered unnecessary to repeat the fact of the extinction of her presumed penal responsibility for the purposes of this sentence.

TWO.- The accusatory principle governs Spanish penal proceedings, so that the absence of accusation, and consequently, the withdrawal of an accusation regarding any of the defendants, necessarily leads to an acquittal.
On the 7th of February 2001, the Public Prosecutor, the sole accusing party, completely withdrew the accusation initially issued against the defendant Mª Belén Martín García. The same occurred with the defendant Enrique Coll Llopis in the final speeches in respect of the sole offence which forms the object of the criminal proceedings, so that both defendants must be fully acquitted.
In trial proceedings on the 7th of February of 2001, the Public Prosecution withdrew the original indictment against the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín for crimes against the Public Treasury as per paragraph D), subparagraph a). Consequently, there must be a full acquittal in respect of this offence.

THREE.- The Public Prosecution has classified the facts expressed in paragraph A) of its indictment, as a crime of unlawful assemblyillegal association, according to articles 173.1, paragraph 1, and subsidiarily 2, and 174.2 of the Penal Code.
In accordance with the Supreme Court Judgment of 28-10-97, the concept of association, as an illegal action, presupposes the existence of a plurality of persons, who are at the same time independent and autonomous in relation to each of the individuals who constitute it, all of whom agree to a specific aim that initially is not necessarily illegal. Likewise the Supreme Court Judgment of 3-5-2001 establishes that such an illegal action requires the union of several people who are organised for specific purposes, with the following pre-requisites: a) plurality of persons associated in order to carry out a specific activity; b) the existence of a more or less complex organisation with regards to the type of foreseeable activity; c) consistency or stability in the sense that the associative agreement must have a permanent duration and is not purely transitory; d) the purpose of the association, in the case of art. 515.1 first paragraph (or art. 173.1, paragraph 1) of the 1973 P.C., must be the perpetration of offences, which presumes a certain determination of illegal activity, without total precision in terms of time and space for each individual action.
The Public Prosecutor’s indictment poses an important difficulty when determining the facts upon which the offences are based. The factual account is very long-winded and contains a harsh criticism of the so-called “Church of Scientology”; nevertheless, it does not explain in sufficient detail the facts that support the different offences which are subsequently described in paragraph II, namely: coercions in art. 496; fraud in articles 528 and 525-5 P.C. (Penal code) of 1973; offences against the Department of Treasury in art. 349 bis and the following articles of the 1973 P.C.; offences against the freedom and security in the workplace in art. 499 bis P.C.; encroachment in art. 321 of the 1973 P.C., injuries in art. 420 P.C.; threats in art. 493 P.C.; impersonation of a public officer in art. 320 P.C.; false accusation in art. 325 P.C.; false imprisonment in art. 480 P.C.; and failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences in art. 338 bis P.C.
In truth, it appears that the greater part of these criminal offences are based on facts that serve as the grounds for the illegal actions listed in paragraphs B) to G), in spite of the fact that part of these have been declared to have passed statute of limitations lapsed for want of prosecution by court decision on 4th of last April. Although this lack of precision has been pointed out in the second point of the reasoning of the aforementioned court decision, this Court had hopeds that in its final speeches conclusion speechess, the public prosecution would will synthesise the facts and explain in a clear manner those facts that give rise to the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association. But this has not been the case. The final indictment substantially coincides with the provisional indictment, and its content does not afford a clear insight as to which facts support the intention to commit the offences that the Public Prosecutor subsequently describes in said paragraph II of his indictment, and which furthermore, he has extended to all the associations to which the accused parties belonged at any given moment of their social life, which begs further questions, especially bearing in mind that the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association to commit a crime must not be confused with the offence or offences committed upon carrying out the corporate purpose.
All of these aspects have a negative influence on the systematic of this court decision, since we are obliged to extract from a quite incoherent group of facts in the indictment which are contained in paragraph A), those that could be unlawful, which involves an important task in deduction or inference, with the risk of exceeding the scope of the indictment. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that this lack of precision can only exceptionally be complemented by means of the facts that serve as the grounds of the offences in respect of paragraphs B) to G); because thus the greater part of them reflect are punishable deeds with specific intervention that have been specifically committed by some of the accused, but it is not possible to extend them to the remaining parties, thus blurring the idea of association. A good example of this is that in both the provisional and definitive indictments, the defendant Ms. Antonia Navarro Castillo was exclusively accused of the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association. In conclusion, the facts in paragraphs B) to G) cannot serve as grounds in respect of paragraph A), unless they were a clear example of an action motivated by the doctrine of the founder, and which were is specifically mentioned in paragraph A).
The remainder will only be taken into account in relation to the specific crimes that are independent from the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association and which are being tried at present, and in accordance with the court orders in response to the pre-trial issues that were raised. These facts, and this cannot be done in any other way, must be analysed in order to determine if they constitute any of the offences that the Public Prosecutor refers to in paragraph II (paragraph 1); of course, if there is any evidence that sufficiently demonstrate them, and finally, demonstrate the participation of the various defendants, who, in fact, were linked by their aim to spread the doctrine of the founder, L. Ronald Hubbard, and to apply his technology, or solely the latter – in the case of the centres destined for the rehabilitation of the substance abusers-. This last argument allows us to draw the conclusion that, in principle, and in respect of all the defendants (with the exception of Manuel Ruiz Serrano, since there is no record that he held management posts in Dianetics), that the first three requirements for the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association are present, that is: a plurality of persons associated in order to carry out a specific activity; the existence of an organisation; consistency or permanence in the sense that the association must have a certain duration and not be purely temporary. It is a much more difficult matter to prove that the aim of the different associations was to commit the offences described by the Public Prosecutor, or even some of them, or alternatively to promote their commission once they were incorporated.
– The first criminal tendency that the Public Prosecutor mentions in his indictment is that of coercion, envisaged and sanctioned in art. 496 of the 1973 P.C..
This offence requires for its existence: violent conduct, which also comprises the vis in rebus; a modus operandi directed to preventing the commission of that which the law does not prohibit, or to force the commission of that which one does not desire to do, be it just or unjust; a mens rea or desire to restrict another person’s freedom; and finally, the illegal nature of the action.
Together with the offence of the coercion, the offence of threats, envisaged in art. 493 of the 1973 P.C. must also be analysed due to the fact that both infringe freedom, and any such deeds as may support such actions can likewise be linked to one or another offence.
Within fact A), the public prosecution mentions the regulated activities of Scientology, and expressly refer to the “HCO Manual of Justice”, of 16-4-59.
The first problem that is raised in this respect is the possibility of being able to take said document into account. It was incorporated to the proceedings in two ways: firstly, and only partially, by means of an unidentified witness, known as “Nestor” (Tome IV); and secondly through the police, by virtue of the notification dated 16-3-89 (page 2287), which indicates that this document (which is in attached herewith as Annex No. 48) was obtained in the course of a search carried out at OTL Ibérica, at calle Alonso Cano 74. These incorporation methods preclude a reasonable analysis of its contents. In respect of the first method, because the subject that supplied it was not present during the investigative phase, nor of course during the trial proceedings. And in respect of the second for the following reasons: a) because, according to the line of reasoning adopted in the court order in respect of the for the pre-trial issues (pages 44 and 45), and in view of the fact that the entry and search procedures did not comply with the reasonable grounds criteria, it cannot be convincingly argued that said search did not require a court order. The witnesses that testified in trial proceedings on the 4th and 5th of July, and in relation with for those proceedings, José Ángel Contreras and national policeman No. 11.760, were not especially explicit in this respect, which is understandable bearing in mind the time elapsed; b) more importantly, it cannot even be guaranteed that said documents really were obtained in the course of the search, since they are not described in the search record (page 4477, tome XVI).
On the contrary, and in relation to the indicted offences, the Policy Letter called “How to resolve negative propaganda”, and dated 21-11-72, may be taken into account. It was incorporated into the proceedings by the defence, and is recorded in page 7193 and the following pages of tome XXVI. Upon examining its contents it becomes evident, once again, that there was a serious, almost obsessive, preoccupation to protect the organisation from any attack, in this case from the outside, in other words, by persons or entities outside the organisation. Several affirmations can be found to this effect, such as that negative propaganda is essentially a factory of lies, and that, faced with the absence of available information, people invent the facts. All of this was to be combated by means of rules, such as those mentioned below:
– Fill the void of data with other data based on facts.
– Prove that false declarations are lies.
– Discredit any rumour that you come across.
– Resolve the interest level with another declaration.
– Locate the exact source.
– Use your knowledge of the source to destroy or disable the source of the negative propaganda by non-criminal means.
– Continue to fill the void of data with good data, using any means available.

Among these rules, the one named “do the dead agent” is especially worthy of note. It consists of proving that the declarations are false, upon demonstrating that what has been said is false, those that believed him “kill him”, or at least cease to believe in him, which means, that “he dies” as a true confidant.
Given this scenario, it is evident that the only part that must be dealt with from the penal point of view is the passage in paragraph 6, named “Prevent or destroy”, which is in turn linked with the so-called crimes of the attacker and with the conclusion that: “Only a counter-attack can resolve the situation”. And although it is requested that the counter-attack be based on true facts – thus imposing the need for a prior investigation- it is quite clear that it entails the discovery of what might be called the real crimes of the negative propagandist, with the aim of making them public – even with the possibility of entering into conversations with the affected party-; this latter attitude can be linked with the Public Prosecutor’s has statement in paragraph 3 of page 15 of the indictment.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to confirm that this policy letter cannot serve as the grounds for the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association. In the worst of cases, it would constitute a generic invitation to defend the organisation to the point of urging its members to commit a hypothetical offence of coercion. But this is insufficient, since the unlawful action to be committed cannot be indeterminate. Its individualisation is necessary, given the fact that art. 10 P.C. refers to an action or omission, so that a mere tendency or future hypothesis is not sufficient. In addition, it must be taken into account that the instructions originate from a country, the USA, which is much more tolerant with extreme acts of defence against any attack. For this reason, in order to classify the actions of the defendants as offences of unlawful assemblyillegal association, the perpetration of any deeds capable of being classified as specific offences against freedom would have had to be proved, so as to then lead to the inference that said deeds were the consequence of an ideology that was transmitted by means of the aforementioned publications. No such thing has been proved.
In this respect, it is also necessary to analyse the deeds mentioned in pages 16 and 17, related to the use of the “E-meter”, and more specifically the documentation that is collected in respect of the audited person’s declarations or confessions and forms the substance of the so-called “folders”, and their subsequent use for the most varied purposes, under the threat of their publication. Thus, apart from the mention that the Public Prosecutor himself makes regarding the use of these confessions as a means of coercion, it must be said that the presence of the of the elements of this offence have not been proven, not even as a vis compulsiva threat, or as the independent offence of threats, in accordance with art. 493 P.C., and that, in accordance with said precept, is constituted by the announcement of a future, unjust, determined and possible harm, that in turn constitutes an offence, and depends on the will of a person who, equally, is capable of producing a natural intimidation.
The defendants, in their statements in the oral proceedings, emphasised not only that the auditings had the aim of achieving the spiritual improvement of the audited party, but also that the documents that contain the results of the auditings were secret. The latter has been verified by the regulations that conform the so-called “Code of the Auditor’s Code”, which appears in some of their publications (art. 22, page 621 of the book, “What is Scientology?”). As a result, it is necessary to rely on the evidence produced in the trial proceedings to finally determine whether, and in spite of being prohibited from so doing by the doctrine of its founder, L.R. Hubbard, the associations created in Spain that purported to spread said doctrine in fact breached it, and committed the offence in question. The answer to this question is no.

The Public Prosecutor expressly refers to pages 1773 to 1775 of tome VII of the indictments. It is true that these pages, under the heading “Knowledge ReportJudicial Investigative Report”, contain “secrets of confession” obtained during the auditing. But it is also true that the person who signed them is not among the defendants. And what is even more important, the affected person, specifically Manuel Luxan del Campillo, in his initial statement, declared before the police authorities and confirmed before the Judge (page 1766 to 1768), denied that after claiming a refund from the Dianeticsbetic organisation, he received a negative response and it was implied that the “overs” (sins or faults) that he had confessed in the auditing sessions would be used against him. Afterwards, during the trial proceedings he explained that he had reached an agreement for the refund of the money, and that the agreement was being observed. Equally, he said: “I do not feel that I have been defrauded, coerced or threatened at all.” (proceedings of 3rd of July 2001). In full court proceedings, only the witness for the prosecution, J. Carlos Contreras Fernández, has mentioned that they really threatened him with making the “folders” public if he acted against the organisation. This coincides with the statement in page 1535 of Tome VI. Nevertheless, neither in the first declaration, nor during the trial proceedings, did he identify the person or persons that carried out these threats (he made mention to the police of a person that does not coincide with any of the defendants, and in the trial proceedings, he spoke about a thin and bearded person who was in charge of the sale of the courses and programmes – record of proceedings of 7th of June 2001). It must be added to all this that there is no record of this purported threat being carried out. On the contrary, it appears that an agreement was reached in relation to the refund, in order to avoid being reported.
There is no doubt that documenting the contents of confessions, to the extent that they include intimate details and even incriminating acts, amounts to placing a dangerous weapon in the hands of the auditor, and in detriment of the audited party. However, this situation is also commonplace in medical and religious circles, although in an exclusively verbal manner. In consequence, to be able to speak of unlawful assemblyillegal association in respect of all the defendants (to the extent that they all have admitted that they intended to defend the L. Ronald Hubbard doctrine or the use of his methods), it would be necessary to prove that the obtention of such information through auditings was aimed at pre-empting future demands, court action, money refunds, etc., as the Prosecutor alleges. But this has not been the case. For these purposes, neither the declaration of a sole witness, nor the aforementioned documentation alluded to in the “Investigative Report”, are sufficient. This requires evidence that is much more conclusive, without prejudice to the fact that breach of the regulations is perfectly possible by any of the Scientology members, and thus the commission of offences by one or more of its members outside the association is also possible.
Within this first section, it is also appropriate to analyse the issues revolving around the “Codes of Ethics” or “Crimes and Sanctions”, which the Public Prosecutor expressly mentions in the facts of paragraph A), also placing it in relation to the declaration of “suppressive”.
In the book “What is Scientology?”, and in the chapter called “Issues of Ethics and Justice in Scientology”, four general categories of crimes and offences are alluded to: errors, minor offences, crimes, and serious crimes, which are more extensively described in the book “Introduction to the Ethics of Scientology”, to which the public indictment also refers, and is located attached herewith as a photocopy in Annex No. 38. Equally, in the first of the aforementioned publications, the different bodies that constitute the Justice system of Scientology are described.
Thus, from their content, it can only be concluded that this is a strict code of conduct, which essentially attempts to protect the organisation and in which, obviously, the most persecuted conducts are those that threaten the organisation, the most serious sanction being the expulsion of the individual, which is then made public among the scientology members, with the aim that the expelled party does not harm or contaminate them. This procedure is known as the “declaration of suppressive”.
The only document that contains a statement of such nature in Spain appears in page 810 of the proceedings, which refers to John Paul Caban and is incorporated to the case through this witness. This statement appears to have been confirmed by Mª Antonia Navarro Castillo, who expressly admitted in the full court proceedings that she was the person who supplied the copy of this statement.
This document describes Caban’s activities against the organisation, as well as how all the actions fit into a series of high-level crimes (six in total), and at the same time it defines the concept of “suppressive acts”. Evidently, on its own this cannot possess any penal significance. It can only emerge if the suppressive declaration were linked to the possibility of being harassed, injured, harmed, or destroyed, without considering the truth, honesty, or legal rights, exactly as the Prosecutor alleges in page 7 of the indictment, and, furthermore, if this possibility were to materialise with such frequency that would permit the inference of a causal nexus between the declaration of “suppressive” and the occurrence of serious harm by means of conducts that constitute offences. Nevertheless, such actions have not taken place.
The Public Prosecutor, in order to demonstrate his theory, has brought a witness to the trial proceedings, who, as has been stated earlier, was declared suppressive, as was also recorded in the documents. The statements he made during the investigative stage (page 715 and following pages, Tome III of the indictments) and in full court, first of all evince that this witness was “convinced of the effectiveness of the true Hubbard philosophy”, and that this induced him, subsequent to his expulsion from the organisation, to attempt to patent the trademarks and symbols that belonged to it, and to found the so-called “Universal Church of Scientology”, which was founded by public deed dated 14-3-93. He also admitted that, although he was not the leader of a schismatic movement, he did maintain contact with the dissidents, and that in fact, jointly with them, he had attempted “to provide an official status to the organisation”, logically referring to the founding of a new church.
This clearly reveals that the postulates of the Hubbard doctrine can scarcely be doubted through a dissident, who precisely stated that he was convinced of the effectiveness of this true philosophy, and in addition, publicly recorded it in the deed of incorporation, which includes his code of conduct. On the other hand, this witness merely claimed in his allegations that he had been subject to threats by a Scientology member who was a foreigner, and that, incidentally, he did not specify in his first declaration: “when the witness returned to Spain, there would be a surprise for him” (page 807 in tome III of the Indictments), although we cannot reject his suggestion that the threat consisted in that he would be the next person to be imprisoned, after having mentioned the imprisonment of “Petrus”. Nonetheless, this evidence continues to be very weak, insofar as he was not a direct witness of the event that took place in the Barajas Airport, which restricts him to the status of a minor reference witness whose evidence is inadmissible from the moment direct witnesses are brought to trial. This situation is similar to other circumstances, such as those related to the “restoration of ethics handling”, including the physical tasks, since he was not the passive subject of these practices: “I only know what I have heard or read.” (oral trial proceedings).
The second witness that must be taken into account in respect of the offences of coercions or threats – in the context of the criminal tendencies of the association -, is the ex-wife of John Paul Caban, who in fact reported the alleged disappearance of a person at the time considered by her husband to be a collaborator, and which has ultimately given rise to these proceedings.
In this respect, it must be pointed out that the reason for assessing his statements in relation to the incident is that, if they are true, they could constitute the external manifestation of the consequences of the declaration of “suppressive”, although in accordance with the court orders in respect of the pre-trial issues, it is difficult to imagine that they may bring about penal consequences for the alleged participants, the greater part of the unlawful actions having passed statute of limitation lapsed for want of prosecution (the only one that subsists, attributed to Montserrat Aguilera Martín, will be the subject of a specific ruling).
Thus, the declarations of this witness cannot be described as convincing or coherent. Thus, it seems that in the first statement no mention is made of any threat (on the 29-5-84), and once the police had reported that the defendant José Manuel Villarejo Pérez had been present at the scene of incident, he was questioned about the alleged threats (page 6, tome I). The same occurred with the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín (page 8, tome I). It was afterwards, and particularly on 26-9-84, when for the first time, the accuser (Mª Luisa Pons) mentioned the threats (which were, in fact, attributed exclusively to Kurt Weilland –page 14 hearing, tome I-), which she essentially repeated in her declaration of 27-12-88. All of this raises serious doubts in respect of what really happened. That is, whether indeed several individuals did approach Per Ake and told him that he was under arrest, or said declaration was inferred from subsequent conversations that she held with her spouse. Nor can it be confirmed that the individuals that accompanied this person identified themselves as police officers (this was denied in the statement declared in the trial proceedings; also in that of 26-9-84, although she did later deny this in her following statement, made on the 27-12-88). All of which points to the lack of credibility of their statements. Especially if we bear in mind the written declaration contained in page 7438 and the following pages of tome XXVI: although it is indeed arguable that she wrote it at all, it cannot be doubted that she signed it. To this we must add what was said in open court proceedings, in which she claimed that in reality her incriminatory declarations had been induced by her husband.
The mention that the Public Prosecutor makes in page 15 in relation to the consequences of the declaration of “supprccessive” as regards the witness Alfredo Suárez Ferreiro, requires little deliberation. That the “suppressive” may lose his family and acquaintances is harsh, but this does not turn it into an offence. From his statement made in the trial proceedings on the 28-6-01 it can be seen that he was enormously worried about being declared “suppressive”: he did not want to lose his way of life of the last ten years and which revolved around Scientology, and was particularly apprehensive as regards the loss of financial support for his professional activity.
– It now seems appropriate to deal with the facts related to Pedro Lerma Gómez, to the extent that, according to the indictment, was also declared “suppressive” due to his founding a “Narconón” drug addicts’ rehabilitation centre, thus intending to operate independently of Scientology. And essentially because this act, according to the prosecution, caused the organisation to persecute him, and even provoked a person to incriminate himself in respect of the theft of several “E-meters” and subsequently accuse Pedro Lerma abetting him and a third party of aiding him, causing the arrest and imprisonment of Pedro Lerma. These facts, which were brought to trial in Section 16 of this Provincial Court – and concluding with an acquittal, on 31-10-90- and which serve as the grounds for the Public Prosecutor not only in respect of an individual accusation, but also to relate the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association in relation to the offences of false accusation and false imprisonment.
The reason for examining these facts and any evidence thereof is not difficult to understand, to the extent that, according to the indictment, it could can be demonstrated that the declaration of the “suppressive” not only leads to the expulsion of a member from the organisation who seriously attacked it, but from that moment on, leads to harassment, injury, harm or destruction, and to the commission of offences against that person, such as false imprisonment, false accusation, and simulation of crime, all of these by means of the practice or policy known as “fair gameopen-season hunting”. It is a different matter that subsequently there may be an investigation of the participation of José Manuel Villarejo Pérez in the offences of simulation of crime, false accusation, and false imprisonment. This defendant is a person alien to the organisation, and is thus excluded from the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association.
The first item that must be emphasised in this section is that the purported abettor has not been brought to trial as a defendant in respect of the offences of simulation of crime, false accusation, and the subsequent false imprisonment (the latter was committed as consequential wilful misconduct), and which according to the Public Prosecutor, were committed by Rodolfo Sabanero. The supposedly induced party, Juan Carlos Borrallo Rebolledo, has also not appeared in trial (this time as a witness). This absence of evidence bears witness to the great difficulty that the Public Prosecution faces in proving unlawful assemblyillegal association in relation to the offences mentioned above. In truth, the evidence that was presented in the oral trial proceedings have relied on the declarations of the victim, Pedro Lerma Gómez, and of Montserrat Aguilera Martín, which is insufficient for the reasons that will be explained below.
The witness Pedro Lerma, both in his statement during the investigative phase (pages 817 to 820 of Tome III of the indictments) and in the trial proceedings, makes reference to the existence of a serious confrontation with Dianetics in relation to the patents and trademarks, essentially of a financial nature, caused by his use of the Hubbard technology for his rehabilitation treatments. As regards the remainder of his statement in relation to this topic, it is evident that he is not a direct witness, and relies on information provided by third parties. This means that he acted as a reference witness, so that his declarations are inadmissible prosecution evidence, given that the direct witnesses could have been made to testify. This consideration is also applicable to other witnesses that have declared in this respect, as is the case of Fco. Javier Arnaiz del Barco.
Having settled the above, it is clear that the only incriminating evidence which, in principle, the Public Prosecutor can rely on is that of the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín, given the contents of the lengthy statement which she made to the police and is recorded in pages 769 to 783 of Tome III of the indictments. Nevertheless, this declaration has lost all its incriminating force in the subsequent statements, which were made in the judge’s presence and upon becoming a defendant (pages 369 and following pages of the separate piece and the oral proceedings of the trial). But, additionally, a new circumstance has emerged, which is that this defendant, when she abandoned the Dianetics betic organisation, wished to continue her relationship with Scientology, although in the dissenting branch, within the group of John Paul Caban, who insisted that she should denounce reported the official Scientology by means of notary deed on 17-9-85, as is recorded in page 213 and following pages of Tome I. This was also confirmed by another witness, Francisco Javier Arnaiz del Barco, in full court (page 9 of the trial proceedings on 28-6-2001), although a certain animosity between this party and Caban cannot be effectively discarded. This was also confirmed by the witness, Esteban Bueno Casuso, who claimed that Montserrat Aguilera undertook the notary deed due to Caban’s insistence, although again in this case, it is not possible to deny the existence of a certain animosity between them (page 12 of the proceedings of 28-6-2001).
In addition to the above arguments, another important issue must be added, which is that not even the incriminatory statement made by Montserrat Aguilera on 16-12-88, and in the statement that is now being contested, related to the subsequent arrest of Pedro Lerma and other suspects, have been found to be conclusive. It is sufficient to examine the contents of page 775, and specifically the second paragraph, in which, after claiming that among the sins or irregularities that Juan Carlos Borrallo confessed to Dianetics betic was the removal of some “E-Meters Metros”, which he had removed of his own initiative and with the assistance of two persons, he stated: “the fact which is that the affirmant suspects that she could have been used by Rodolfo Sabanero”, a conclusion that he later defended using a subsequent meeting with Borrallo and the fact that after seeing him trembling, apparently with fear, and asking him about it, he answered her him by stating that “he was trying to come to terms with what was going to happen to him ”; this latter situation is compatible not only with a false accusation, but also with the consequences of a guilty verdict, since he had provided self-incriminating evidence for several crimes of theft.
– Another offence that the Public Prosecutor considers that the accused promoted within the association is that of false impersonation of a public officer, envisaged in art. 320 P.C. This must also be rejected, since the factual base is based on the fact that another defendant pretended to be a police officer, and as has been previously argued, the only evidence for the prosecution in respect of this particular is found in the declaration of the witness Mª Luisa de las Virtudes Pons, which, as has been reasoned, is not conclusive.
– The Public Prosecutor also claims the existence of the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association in relation to the offence of failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences, envisaged in the art. 450 of the 1995 P.C..
Little reasoning is required to reply to this claim. The facts in paragraph A) of the indictment cannot support it. Only a fact individually attributed to the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín in paragraph B) can, and it is thus absolutely insufficient. Even more so if, for reasons that will be explained below, this accusation was unexpected.
– The public indictment contained in the lengthy indictment statement, makes reference in many occasions to the organisation’s intention to make a profit, which led him to affirm that their real purpose was none other than “an obsessed and disorganised attempt to become rich and make a profit”. However, these affirmations cannot serve as the grounds for the oft-mentioned offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association, in relation to the offence of fraud.
In this respect, it is necessary to mention the actions carried out by Central Investigative Court No. 2, which, by court order of 13-1-90, accepted jurisdiction in relation to this case (page 4728) after having inhibited Investigative Court No. 21 of Madrid, by court order of 11-7-89 (page 4689).
With regards to the contents of this first court order made by the Central Investigative Court, it is evident that the acceptance jurisdiction was based on the possible existence of an offence of fraud. And this explains that when the Public Prosecutor requested the dismissal without prejudice of the actions because they were not deeds that constituted the offence of fraud, the request was accepted in accordance with art. 790.3 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was carried out by court order of 4-11-94, as well as owing to the fact that counsel for the victims did not at the time enter a formal accusation at the time in respect of this offence, although it did in respect of others. All of this resulted in that, other than the dismissal without prejudice in accordance with art. 641.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the possible offence of fraud, it was agreed to forward the relevant to Investigative Court No. 21 so that it could emit a ruling with respect to the offences which counsel for the victims had formally entered. This resolution was substantially upheld by the court order of the Penal Court of the Supreme Court on 1-9-92, since the dismissal without prejudice was confirmed. It was only quashed in respect of the related issues, thus leaving the precautionary measures without effect and to causing the case to be forwarded to Investigative Court No. 21, serving notice thereof in the Investigative court where the dismissal without prejudice of the actions for the alleged offence of fraud was to be carried out (page 8602 and following pages, tome XXX).
The consequence of these court resolutions is none other than staying the proceedings for the offence of fraud, although only provisionally. Furthermore, and in the case that afterwards there should be sufficient reasons to justify the reconsideration of the decision for the dismissal without prejudice that had been adopted, the body in charge of deciding this would continue to be the Central Investigative Court, and when appropriate, the Supreme Court.
As a result, it is difficult to continue holding that one of the intended offences of the association was fraud, since the proceedings in relation to that offence were stayed and no-one has requested said proceedings to be reopened.
Of course, the Public Prosecutor’s claims cannot support such a possibility, given that this offence demands, in the first place, the commission of a deception, which cannot be discerned with the necessary clarity.
Clearly, many statements made in the full court proceedings facilitate the conclusion that the services provided by the organisation, including the healings, auditings, and purification processes, were not free of cost. On the contrary, they required the expenditure of large sums of money. This can be deduced from the statement made by the witness Antonio J. Gutiérrez Urrestarazu, who claimed that to achieve the objective of becoming “clear”, he was asked to pay the sum of 2,000,000 pesetas. (page 2 of the trial proceedings of 12-6-201). Equally, Fco. Javier Arnaiz del Barco, in his statement made before this Court on 28-6-2001, confirmed the onerous nature of the auditings, as well as how he had paid large sums of money, which in accordance with his initial declaration before the police (page 761 and ss. of Tome III of indictments) can be estimated at over one million pesetas (approximately 90 hours at a fee of 12,500 pesetas per hour). Even Alfonso Marín Rodríguez himself, in the trial proceedings, admitted that Ignacio Tellería paid the sum of 3,000,000 pesetas for auditings, a quantity which Manuel Luxan del Campillo equally confirmed on the date 3-7-2001, since he affirmed that he had paid sums over 3,000,000 pesetas. The financial implications of the other services, such as the purification processes, have also been proved. It can thus be gathered from the document recorded in page 520 of Tome II of the indictments, provided by Claudio Pardos Daga, in which it is shown that in1998, he was billed the sum of 57,775 pesetas for this item. This witness also testified in open court proceedings.
Nevertheless, the collection of the payment for the services rendered, and for financing the organisation, is something that cannot be demonstrated in respect of the oft-mentioned offence of fraud. In contrast with witnesses such as Ana García Rodríguez, who feel that they have been deceived because they did not obtain the benefit that they expected, there are others who maintain the contrary position, and who in addition do not collaborate with the organisation, such as Renata Ruggieri (trial proceedings of 17-7), Javier Maroto Llorente, and Juan Carlos Méndez González (proceedings of 19-7). Some other witnesses for the prosecution, such as Mª José Lasurtegui Iparraguirre, clearly stated that the technology worked as far as she was aware, and equally confirmed that what she had been doing made her feel better, in spite of the fact that she had not achieved the ultimate goal, due to the lack of a suitable auditor to achieve this (court record of 6-7).
All of this can be related to an idea that can be gleaned from one of the defence statements that was made during the proceedings, and is specifically recorded in page 6634 of Tome XXIV, which states that spiritual experiences, or spiritual improvement, cannot be valued in terms of money.
– Within the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association, the Public Prosecutor also makes express reference to the offences against the Public Treasury.
In the first place, it seems particularly appropriate to mention that in the court session of 7th of February of this year, the offences that continue to subsist after the decriminalisation derived from the elevation of the defrauded quotas were enumerated, and the public prosecutor’s indictment in relation to the defendant Montserrat Aguilera Martín was withdrawn. Also, mention must be made to the passing of the statute of limitation lapse for want of prosecution of the offences against the Public Treasury that subsisted, as a result of the court order on the pre-trial issues of 4-4-2001.
Based on this explanation, it is still difficult to understand why once the passing of the statute of limitations lapse for want of prosecution has been declared in relation to these offences and attributed in an to some of the defendants individually, they may in a certain way be revived by means of the oblique method of attributing them collectively and in respect of an association. On the other hand, it must be emphasised that even if the reality of the other data or objective evidence could be adduced as regards the non-payment of association fees, evidence of the subjective element, which is the intent to defraud, would continue to be missing, and which has not been the object of criminal prosecution, precisely as a consequence of the passing of the statute of limitations lapse of the offence for want of prosecution.
As a result, it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of an offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association in relation to the fiscal offence only insofar as it is effectively proved that the various defendants, through the associations to which they belonged, carried out fiscal fraud, or promoted it, and provided that this was imposed on them by the doctrine which they intended to divulge.
The Public Prosecutor’s task in this respect can only be described as arduous, and he has not discharged it.
In relation to these accusations, mention must be made of the oral evidence given in person by Carlos Miguelez del Coso, who, as an accountant, was asked by several of the associations to manage their accounting and, ultimately, to achieve “a more or less legal structure in accordance with the legislation in force” (proceedings of 30-5-2001, page 13). Thus, in addition to this information, which is scarcely compatible with the finality of evading taxes, it must be mentioned that this witness also confirmed that the various entities kept accounting records, which consisted of records of debits and credits; and it should be pointed out that the books were in order, although the accountancy system was not appropriate. But perhaps the most important aspect of his statement was that he convincingly asserted that they did not give him instructions to manipulate data, hide incomes, or falsify accounts, “on the contrary, they wanted to know the true situation of their accounts”.
Since this cannot be otherwise, mention must likewise be made of the expert evidence presented in open court proceedings, in which the two fiscal experts (inspector and subinspector of taxes) and an expert proposed by the defence gave evidence (proceedings of 1-7-2001). From its contents it becomes evident that there were discrepancies among their respective reports, which is irrelevant, and of course will not be analysed, since they referred to the tax reports related to specific taxes and for specific entities –although this may be later shown to have proved failure to submit the suitable tax reports on the part of some of them, which is objective data that can be gathered from the expert reports issued by the Public Treasury experts, and is contained in tome 37.- The crucial issue is whether the expert’s proof provides evidence that the various associations eluded their duties in respect of the Public Treasury following the unequivocal directives of the founder, L. Ronald Hubbard, which are the only point of connection between them all, as has been argued throughout the course of this judgement. The reply must be in the negative.
It is true that the Public Treasury experts have made an allusion to the fact that that they have taken the organisation’s policies that they found among the analysed documents into account. However, this must be assessed bearing two aspects in mind. Firstly, the exact origin of these documents is not known: the arguments adduced as regards the offence of coercion also being applicable in this respect, and specifically in respect of the H.C.O. manual of justice. Secondly: in any case, none of these policies contains a specific order or directive to evade the payment of taxes (page 13 proceedings of 11-7-2001), which the other expert, who gave evidence for the defence, also confirmed. Furthermore, the Public Treasury experts also confirmed the evidence given by the accountant by stating that: “the documents justifying income and expenditure have been meticulously kept”. This has logically allowed various deeds and the appropriate tax reports to be issued. The fact that the accounting did not comply with the general principles of the Commercial Code cannot found an accusation, since, as has also been made evident by the Prosecution’s expert witnesses, during the period of the alleged fiscal frauds (years 1985 to 1987) it was common practice the companies not to keep accounting records.
The fact that part of the income obtained was transferred abroad does not raise negative inferences in respect of the offences at hand, since, as was evidenced by the expert findings on currency fraud contained in pages 5119 and ss. of Tome XIX, the transfers were carried out through an Authorised Entity, and thus with the knowledge of the Public Administration.
Finally, in relation to the H.C.O. Policy Letter of 1977, to which the Public Prosecutor specifically alludes in paragraph 3 of page 16 of its final speech, two observations must be made: 1) that the origin of this Policy Letter is unknown, as is indeed its relevance to this case, since it has not been entered as evidence in the open court proceedings; and 2) that, as a consequence of the above, the rest of its contents are not known, and thus the context of the phrases that the Prosecutor makes reference to is also unknown; although in principle these phrases may seem alarming, they do not appear to be very coherent with the scrupulous income and expenditure bookkeeping that the fiscal experts have referred to.
– The Public Prosecutor also accuses the defendants of the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association in relation to the offence against the freedom and security in the workplace, envisaged in art. 449 bis P.C., without specifying which of the sections (1, 2, or 3) of the mentioned precept is applicable, so that, bearing in mind his remittance to the reports made by the Work Inspection officers comprised in the paragraphs a) to h) of fact E) of the final indictment, it must be understood that he is referring to paragraph 1.
In relation to this illegal action, the arguments expressed in relation to the fiscal offences as a purpose of the association must be borne in mind, specifically in that once the offences had passed the statute of limitations lapsed for want of prosecution in respect of each individual, they can in a certain way be revived by the oblique means of attributing them to the association and its associative purposes. Equally, it must be pointed out that they can only be attributed to the defendants insofar as, by means of the different organisations, they sought to evade the payment of contributions to the Social Security. For this reason, it must also be pointed out that it is necessary to prove the existence of conspiracy or malicious intent, which are essential elements of this offence. Otherwise, we would be faced with minor administrative breaches.
The elevation to the category of conspiracy or malicious intent of advertisements in newspapers such as that which appears in page 4859, tome XVIII, is of course insufficient. One of the reasons can be found in the terms of the advertisement itself: “Personnel needed for rehabilitation centre”, which lacks precision. The important matter is whether the different candidates were made to believe that they were signing work contracts, as is alleged by the Public Prosecutor, which seems unlikely in the light of the contents of the document included in the third annex submitted by the National Police Authority. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor has brought one single witness to trial, Miguel Almarza Bachiller, in support of his incriminatory thesis, which was not achieved in the light of the statement made on 10-9-2001. Furthermore, evidence of an isolated fact is insufficient to support the existence of a criminal purpose of the unlawful association. Especially since other witnesses for the prosecution have supported the contrary thesis, such as Raúl Gil del Barco, who went to the centre because a member of his family had been rehabilitated, and then remained there as a collaborator for approximately five years (proceedings of 30-5-2001).
At the same time, mention must be made of the position that the experts for the prosecution have maintained, and which were placed on record in the trial proceedings, by Luis Mateo del Corro, Rafael Gil Muñoz, and Manuel Iglesias Peláez, to the effect that the persons that provided services by means of collaboration contracts were indeed employees. This position is respectable, but not decisive or binding. The fundamental reason for this lies in the fact that the ascertainment of whether the type of relationship between the parties fulfilled the requirements of art. 1 of the Labour Code ultimately lay with the employment tribunals and courts. And the case is that this action has on several occasions (page 645 tome V of the evidence, page 7173 tome XXV) mentioned a sentence handed down by the Central Labour Court which denies this and declares the incompetence of the jurisdictional labour order, advising the parties of their right to apply to the competent civil jurisdiction, the case being that the contents of this court resolution hold that the perpetrator collaborated with two associations, the Civil Retreat Association and the Dianetics Civil Association. In this sense, mention must be made of the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice in Valencia, in its the administrative court, on 18-9-90, and recorded in pages 7177 and ss. of this case, in respect of an administrative appeal brought by Narconon Mediterranean A.C., against a Court Resolution of 12-5-87 from the Provincial Labour Department of Castellón, which was confirmed on 20-11-87 by the Social Security Jurisdiction Regime Department in relation the Violation Proceeding num. 420/87, brought before the court on 13-4-87, due to failure to register the company in the General Regime of the Social Security System, in which the aforementioned administrative actions were annulled and quashed as regards the lack of evidence of the existence of employees within the association, which is the only information that for Social Security purposes proves the existence of a business enterprise (third section of the judicial grounds).
The Public Prosecutor, in order to factually support his accusations, also states that the associations carried out deductions in respect of Personal income tax (I.R.P.F.) The answer to this is that indeed the reports in tome 37 reflect that two entities, the Association of Social Improvement and Droganon Los Molinos, carried out said deductions (the first in the years 1985 and 1986, and the second in the year 1985, pages 10651 and 10663). Nonetheless, this could constitute evidence that these entities had employees, but it cannot be made applicable to the remaining associations (thus being rejected as a criminal purpose). Furthermore, the objective element of conspiracy and malicious intent mentioned has yet to be proved.
– Another of the offences that the Public Prosecutor alleges is a criminal purpose of the unlawful association is that of encroachment, foreseen and penalised in art. 321 of the 1973 P.C., and art. 403 C.P. of 1995.
Said offence requires the presence of several elements: a) the performance of acts pertaining to the exercise of a profession for which an official title or legal recognition or international agreement is required; b) the breach of the extra-penal legislation that regulates the violated profession; and c) knowledge on the part of the subject of the irregular or illegitimate acts that he or she is carrying out, and the infringement of the legal provisions which govern the profession that is being encroached.
In paragraph A) regarding the facts of the indictment, reference is made to the “personality test”, and the following is added: “that it was performed by persons without any official certification”, inferring therefore that these facts may serve as grounds for the aforementioned offence, which means that the results of the test may be shared.
The report issued by the Official Association of Psychologists, recorded in pages 2007 and 2008 of Tome VIII, has not been conveniently ratified in the trial proceedings. For the record it must be added that the tests performed by the Scientology organisation did not meet the reliability requirements demanded for this type of psychological testing, and that their interpretation should be carried out by a certified psychologist. Nonetheless, such conclusions must necessarily relate to that which is previously stated in the report, and it is only relevant to the extent that citizens were led to believe that these were psychological tests performed on them, and more importantly, contained the express reference that in actual fact, they were tests reflecting the ideas of L. Ronald Hubbard with regard to specific variables determined only by him. This was confirmed by several defendants, and specifically by Mª Victoria de Blas Arribas, who stated that the tests are neither psychiatric nor psychological, and that people were informed of this fact at the time that they were performed. In addition to this, they were merely classified by means of a template, as was corroborated by another defendant, Mª del Carmen Muñoz Rosal (proceedings of 4-5-2001).
The Public Prosecution, in its indictment, relates this offence to the so-called “purification process or programme”, which consist of sauna sessions, which are alternated with physical exercise, the supply of vitamins and multi-mineral complexes that were applied both in the so-called religious centres, as well as in the secular centres, with the objective of rehabilitating substance abusers.
The practice of this technology is not susceptible to being included in the aforementioned offence. None of the medical experts that have declared in court (proceedings of 12-7-2001) has been attributed the exclusive competence to perform it. It is sufficient to add that, in reality, the performance of exercises, saunas, and the taking of vitamins is something that can be carried out by any individual under his own initiative, which makes it difficult to consider it encroachment in respect of someone who simply encourages third parties to participate. It is a different matter if persons who are subjected to these practices are previously examined by a qualified professional, but this is outside the realms of the debated offence.
Also, an encroachment offence cannot be sustained for practising auditing. Exactly as in the case that was previously analysed, there is no expert report that supports the fact that this practice is a psychiatric treatment. The two experts proposed by the Public Prosecutor, Ms. Rosario Arce Cordón and Ms. Mª José Caicoya Cousolle, who appeared in the trial proceedings of 10-9-2001, ratifying their report issued on 10-7-1989 (fol. 4943 and following pages of Tome XVIII), explained that the aforementioned opinion was exclusively related to the books and documents belonging to Scientology, not to Scientologists, adepts, or followers of the doctrine developed by L. Ronald Hubbard. It was equally stated that the treatment that is provided is not a psychiatric treatment. Finally, Dr. Caicoya also stated in relation to the auditing: “The auditing as a catharsis, as anything that frees people from problems, whether it establishes communication with professionals or not, is done everyday, on a daily basis, and does not represent a problem in itself; on the contrary, health professionals stimulate communication as a goal in itself, since it is a positive factor (page 17)”. This criterion was also corroborated by a third psychiatrist, proposed by the defence, Dr. García Andrade, who made reference to the fact that communication is beneficial and is not specifically limited to psychiatric treatment, since it is employed when talking to friends, one’s partner, colleagues, etc., as well as the fact that it is positive and does not constitute any risk. This should be added to the further confirmation of the other Scientology scholars who made statements along with the psychiatric experts. Finally, it should be pointed out that Dr. Caicoya also stated, when replying to one of the questions posed by the defence: “Hopefully, those who read these books will not go to a Dianetics centre seeking a psychiatrist nor will they expect to obtain psychiatric treatment” (page 22, proceedings of 10-9-2001).
– The last of the criminal purposes that are attributed to the unlawful association is that of injuries.
In relation to this offence, several detailed explanations must be made:
1) None of the facts contemplated in paragraphs F) and G) have in principle been subject to criminal prosecution. In accordance to the court order of the 4th of April, regarding pre-trial issues, those of paragraph F) – subparagraphs a) and b) – have passed statute of limitations lapsed for want of prosecution; the same is said in respect of paragraph G), subparagraphs f) to j), as regards the Public Prosecution’s provisional conclusions. Subparagraphs c), d), and e) of paragraph G) have not passed the statute of limitations lapsed for want of prosecution, nor have they been subjected to criminal prosecution, since they are attributed exclusively to Heber Carl Jentzsch (accused but not prosecuted). Finally, those described in subparagraph b) of paragraph G) have not been the subject of criminal prosecution, although they have also been attributed to another defendant (in addition to Heber Carl Jentzsch), specifically to Manuel Ruiz Serrano. In this oft-mentioned court decision, he admitted to not appearing as a defendant in respect of offences against public health and injuries, which resulted that in such matters proceedings should be retrospectively brought, so that he could make a statement in due time.
2) It is difficult to successfully build a case regarding the crime of unlawful assemblyillegal association based on criminal intent to injure. It is practically impossible in the case of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1: “Those whose objective it was to commit any offence” and with very limited possibilities in subparagraph 2: “After having been constituted, promoted its perpetration.”
Of course, these offences cannot be supported by deeds such as those described in page 18 of the indictment, which are based on the report issued by two psychiatrists (who have previously been mentioned), prepared from documents that follow the doctrine of L. Ronald Hubbard, and which come to conclusions such as that those documents promote a mistrust towards medical practice. Instead, the practice of Dianetics is offered as the only possible alternative, and this involves potential danger for the health of those people who see Dianetics as the only cure or solution to their problems, generating a double risk: they are deprived of the benefits of medical assistance and they are denied the benefits promised from the start. It is clear that this, at most, could incite a risk offence or criminal negligence. Furthermore, the postulates that appear in the book “Dianetics; the Power of Thought over the Body” must be borne in mind, specifically at page 10: “this is a therapeutic technique that can be used to treat all non-organic mental illnesses and all psychosomatic organic illnesses, with the guarantee of a complete cure in all cases” (referring to Dianetics), which presently appear to have been considerably explained. Several experts sustain this position in statements made in full court, such as Mr. Alejandro Frigerio. This is confirmed with HCO policy dated 12th of June 1969, as recorded in pages 7010 to 7012 of Tome 25. Also in section 29 of the Code of the Auditor’s Code (page 621 of the book “What is Scientology”). “I promise to refuse admittance into the ranks of practising members to anyone who is insane.”
One can reach an identical conclusion according to factual bases such as those described in page 12 of the indictment, supported by the confirmation that the forensic medical expert Dr. José Abenza Rojo made in the report recorded in pages 760 to 762 of volume III of the case, and from which it can be gathered that one of the Narconon centres did not meet the required sanitary conditions and that it did not possess the required permanent medical staff. Especially considering that the rehabilitation centres do not have records for any of the injuries suffered by their inpatients. It is not in vain that none of the deeds of individual offences due to physical injuries (paragraphs F) and G) bear any relationship to the rehabilitation centres dealing with substance-abuse.
On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the factual account, outlined in subparagraphs a) and b) of fact F) of the indictment, describes some deeds which, when in summary, could constitute injuries due to negligence (exactly as is specified by the Public Prosecution in its provisional conclusion). It is therefore impossible to interrelate these injuries with the offence of unlawful assembly. The perpetration of negligent offences cannot be incited, inasmuch as they cannot exist without harm being done, which, in turn, can be neither desired nor wished for. In other words, one cannot promote what is undesirable and unknown.
Regarding psychiatric injuries, mention should be made of the result of expert psychiatric testing carried out by the doctors, Dr. Juan José Carrasco Gómez and Dr. Enrique Fernández Rodríguez, which were ratified in full court proceedings. It is understood, from their contents, that in previous different reports (recorded in Tome XIX), they never detected a causal relationship between the alleged arguments emitted by the interested parties and the facts that were denounced: “They understood that it was not possible to establish a symptomatic chart that could be related to the activities that have been carried out” (page 6 of the case report dated 12-7-2001). They also added that some of the patients were already previously ill, and that although some people, with immature traits but non pathological tendencies could be the subject of a breakdown, one of the experts explained that such breakdowns may also occur regardless of the therapeutic strategy. Affirmations such as the following are of special relevance: “These are patients with neurotic pathologies. They arrive at this situation as an alternative to other therapies previously performed on them. Whether they are suitable or not, other protocol strategies can result in this type of breakdown in patients with prior problems, personality problems.”

Finally, it should be mentioned that the practice of “TheEl Puriff” (Purification) cannot form the basis of an offence of injuries. The practice includes the supply of vitamins and multi-mineral complexes. Expert medical testing conducted in full court (on the 12-7-2001), demonstrated that the programme does not include toxic dosages. This was made evident by Dr. Juan Ignacio Redondo Ibarguchi, and confirmed by both experts provided by the Public Prosecution, Dr. Abenza Rojo and Dr. Segura Abada, after having been shown pages 10,251 and 10,252 of the report prepared by the first expert, as recorded in Tome 36.

FOUR.- The Public Prosecution, in its final conclusions, describes the acts in paragraph B) as an offence of failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences, as foreseen and penalised in art. 450 of the 1995 P.C., which is more favourable than art. 338 of the repealed penal text, attributed to its author, Montserrat Aguilera Martín.
This conclusion cannot prosper.
The public prosecution, in the provisional indictment issued against the aforementioned defendant, and dated the 7th of February 1997, accuses her of perpetrating an offence of threats, envisaged and penalised by art. 493.2 P.C. The final conclusions changed the provisional specifications and the defendant was accused of the previously alluded offence, substantially modifying the facts, while introducing a new paragraph in page 20 immediately after the name of the defendant, claiming the following: “ (she…who knew from Weilland what motive had led him to that point. She agreed, and furthermore took no measures on her part to avoid this possible event.”
Counsel for the defence has invoked the infringement of the accusatory principle, and this Court must accept it.
It is true that the Public Prosecution, as any other prosecutor, must firmly establish its conclusions upon presenting its evidence in the proceedings expressly envisaged for this purpose (art. 792-6). But it cannot be ignored that art. 24 of the Constitution recognised the right to be informed of the accusation that has been formulated against her and the right to employ the evidence in her defence (Supreme Court Judgments of 22-5 and 7-10-98), and 8-11-2001). Furthermore, in the present case, this right has not been respected as of the moment the facts have been changed to support a new indictment, so that the defence becomes impossible. This situation cannot be rectified by means of the procedures provided for in rule 7 of art. 793, which only envisages changes in penal classification, degrees of participation or execution, and aggravating circumstances of the sentence.

FIVE. – The public prosecution, in its final conclusions, considers the facts constitute: a) an offence of simulation of crime according to art. 457 of the 1995 P.C.); b) an offence of false accusation according to art. 456.1.1 and 2 with regard to articles 237, 240, 33, and 13 P.C; and c) an offence of false imprisonment in accordance with art. 163.1 of the 1995 P.C.
The first of said offences requires holding oneself out to be a responsible party or the victim of a penal infringement or denouncing a non-existent one, that this be done before a public officer, and that this action gives rise to court procedures.
The facts that serve as the basis to attribute the perpetration of this offence to the defendant José Manuel Villarejo Pérez in themselves entail serious difficulty. It would have been necessary to expressly record that in some way, he pressured, abetted, or forced Juan Carlos Borrallo to falsely self-incriminate himself of an offence, or to denounce a non-existent one. This has not been the case, and of course for these purposes it is insufficient that he indicated the police station where he should have done it, despite knowing several people who worked in said police station.
On the other hand, it must be said that the objective element of the simulation has also not been proved to the minimum standard of proof.
It is indisputable that, in these proceedings, the acquittal of Juan Carlos Borrallo Rebolledo, Pedro Lerma Gómez, and José Luis Díaz Palos, must be respected in respect of the offence of robbery which caused proceedings No. 41/83, and which concluded with an acquittal sentence handed down by Section 16, on the date 31-10-91, recorded in pages 6820 and ss. of tome XXIV. However, this judgment cannot serve as the grounds for the offence that is being argued, for a fundamental reason, and this is that in the proven facts have not confirmed that the removal of the “E-meters” from the Dianetics office did not take place; it is only doubted that it took place, and this argument provides the grounds for the acquittal of Juan Carlos Borrallo.
As a result, the Public Prosecutor should have demonstrated in these proceedings that the offence of robbery, frequently mentioned, never took place. But this has not been the case. To this effect, it is only necessary to remind oneself of the previous arguments regarding the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association, and in relation to the facts that affected Pedro Lerma Gòmez. None of the persons that directly intervened in the facts (Rodolfo Sabanero and Juan Carlos Borrallo) have appeared before the Court, and the evidence of Montserrat Aguilera is not conclusive. Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the Public Prosecutor considers that there is a direct and exclusive relation between the offence at hand and the judgment handed down by Section 16, erroneously believing that in this resolution it was held that the removal never took place.
The accusation of the perpetration by the defendant José Manuel Villarejo Pérez of an offence of false accusation, envisaged and penalised in art. 456 P.C. also cannot be upheld.
This offence demands the presence of several elements: 1) the precise accusation in respect of specific facts and specifically directed against a particular person; 2) the inclusion of the accused facts in an offence or infringement that is punishable ex officio; 3) the falseness of the accusation; 4) that this be carried out before an authority that has the obligation to act; and 5) that the accusation be made in bad faith and with the knowledge that the denounced fact is criminal and false.
The contents of the sentence handed down by Section 16 is only linked to this Court in the previously mentioned terms. Nothing more. This implies that all those facts that served as the grounds for the possible accusation to José Manuel Villarejo, must necessarily be proven in these proceedings, since he was not a part of that action, and neither were Rodolfo Sabanero or the Church of Scientology.
Thus, one of the primary issues raised is the lack of precision of the indictment in relation to the defendant José Manuel Villarejo for the offence of false accusation.
Even after admitting that the fact of having collaborated with other missionaries so that Pedro Lerma would go to prison (paragraph 2 of page 21 of the indictment) could imply that he also possessed knowledge of the false accusation against Pedro Lerma that Juan Carlos Borrallo was going to carry out, his active intervention in these facts, which consisted in indicating to which police station he should go to carry it out, is insufficient to attribute to him the title of perpetrator, or even of accomplice. Regardless of which police station might have been chosen, the result would have been practically identical. In addition, as was certified by the testimony forwarded by Section 16, and in particular in page 10, the other offences in which Juan Carlos Borrallo acknowledged participation had been reported in the same Ventas police station. In conclusion, to support the accusation that the Public Prosecutor has made, he should have attributed to the accused José Manual Villarejo a clear and unmistakable act focused on achieving that Juan Carlos Borrallo falsely incriminated Pedro Lerma, which of course has not been sufficiently demonstrated.
As has been argued, neither Juan Carlos Borrallo nor Rodolfo Sabanero, have been brought before these trial proceedings. Pedro Lerma Gómez, as has also been explained above, in open court proceedings, and when asked about the supposed participation of José M. Villarejo in the facts at hand, stated: “ the speaker knows this due to the declarations of other persons”. With regards to Montserrat Aguilera, little more can be added to what was stated above when analysing the evidence of the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association. Furthermore, not even her most incriminating declaration, which was made on the 16th of December 1988 is conclusive in this respect. Even if Rodolfo Sabanero from the beginning had intended to put Pedro Lerma into prison, and had used the defendant José M. Villarejo to examine his dossier, it would still not be possible to support the participation of the latter in the false accusation, since said accusation must be related with the facts that took place afterwards with Juan C. Borrallo, and with regards to this person, the only act that has been attributed to him is going to a specific Police station. All of which must also be placed in relation with the especially relevant information that, according to Montserrat Aguilera, the false accusation was really only a suspicion or a conjecture.
If, due to what has been explained, the offences of simulation of a crime and false accusation must fail, the more serious offence, which is false imprisonment (art. 163 P.C.), hardly bears scrutiny.
If participation in the two previous offences cannot be proved, the penal responsibility cannot be attributed to him in respect of the latter offence, which is a necessary consequence of the other two. Said conviction, excluding the participation in the other two offences, would have required the specific presence of these hypothetical elements, and above all the indictment and prior conviction for an offence of obstruction of justice, envisaged and penalised in art. 450 P.C.

SIX. – The Public Prosecutor attributes to Manuel Ruiz Serrano the offence of encroachment, envisaged and penalised in art. 403 of the 1995 P.C., considering it more favourable than art. 321 of the 1973 P.C..
In relation to said offence, the first problem that arises is that, in accordance with the provisions part of the court order of 4th of April 2001, it could be understood that the accused was not being criminally prosecuted at that time for the facts of paragraph G), subparagraph b), although certainly in the first legal ground, and upon valuing the condition or otherwise of defendant Manuel Ruiz Serrano, it is exclusively rejected in relation to the offences against Public Health and injuries, and not in relation to the offences of unlawful assemblyillegal association and encroachment.
As a result, and given that evidence has been presented in relation to this offence as a purpose of the unlawful assemblyillegal association, it is appropriate to subject the pronouncement regarding its possible perpetration by the defendant Manuel Ruiz Serrano, to the position held in this respect in his defence, since it is he who must decide if this has prejudiced his defence.
In accordance with the above, and taking into account the position in favour of the defence of Manuel Ruiz Serrano, which has been made evident in the oral report, we must rule on this offence.
In this respect, little else can be added to that argued for the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association.
The practice of auditing cannot result in the offence of encroachment. It is not in the realm of psychiatric medicine as was claimed by the Public Prosecution. It is a technique developed by Hubbard by means of a device, which of course, is harmless for the physical health, and which does not require knowledge of either psychiatry or psychology. The training or the formation that the entity provides is sufficient to carry out this test. As was said by Dr. García Andrade in full court proceedings, the communication is not a risk, nor is it specifically a psychiatric treatment, “it is used in conversations, with friends, one’s partner, and with work colleagues” (all of which is perfectly true of the auditing). Even more so if the persons that use it consider it to be a religious practice.

SEVEN. – The acquittal of all the accused entails the declaration in regard of the legal costs, which cannot be imposed on the acquitted defendants, art. 240 Criminal Procedure Code.

EIGHT. – The defence for the accused Manuel Ruiz Serrano, Santiago Vadillo Aceves and José Manuel Villarejo Pérez, have initiated witness procedures against the National Police Inspector No. 14326, but this pretension cannot be accepted, since there are not enough motives to justify it. In relation to the first defendant, because it does not cease to be a minor subjective valuation of the witness: in his judgement, no one has been rehabilitated in Narconón without having become addicted to Scientology. As far as the second defendant is concerned, although the witness, Dario García Díez affirmed in the trial proceedings that the aforementioned Police Inspector passed a report to his superiors against José Manuel Villarejo, this does not show that he deliberately lied by denying his personal animosity against this aforementioned defendant in open court proceedings.

THE COURT RULES

That we must ACQUIT AND THUS DO ACQUIT the defendants ENRIQUE COLL LLOPIS of the offence of unlawful assemblyillegal association; MARÍA BELÉN MARTÍN GARCÍA of offences of unlawful assemblyillegal association, against the public health, and reckless negligence; and MONTSERRAT AGUILERA MARTÍN of the offence against the Public Treasury, due to the fact that the Public Prosecutor has withdrawn its indictment.

That we must ACQUIT AND THUS DO ACQUIT the defendants MARÍA VICTORIA DE BLAS ARRIBAS, VIRGILIO CASTELLANOS SAIZ, ENRIQUE AYUSO FERRER, MARÍA ANTONIA NAVARRO CASTILLO, ALFONSO MARÍN RODRÍGUEZ, MARÍA LUISA PÉREZ AGUILAR, ARTURO REGUERA ARDANZA, MARÍA DEL CARMEN MUÑOZ ROSAL, MANUEL RUIZ SERRANO, VALENTÍN FERNÁNDEZ-TUBAU RODES, SANTIAGO VADILLO ACEVES, AND MONSERRAT AGUILERA MARTÍN, of the offences of unlawful assembly illegal association, for which they had also been accused by the Public Prosecutor.

Equally, we must ACQUIT AND THUS DO ACQUIT the defendants MONSERRAT AGUILERA MARTÍN of the offence of failure to prevent the perpetration of specific offences; JOSÉ MANUEL VILLAREJO PÉREZ of the offences of the simulation of a crime, false accusation, and false imprisonment; and MANUEL RUIZ SERRANO of the offence of encroachment, for which they had also been accused by the Public Prosecutor.
The totality of the court costs caused are declared ex officio.
And all the precautionary measures that had been adopted against the defendants in this criminal action are hereby quashed and revoked.

It is possible to appeal against this ruling before the 2nd Court of the Supreme Court, and which must be announced before this Court within five working days from the date following its notification.

We hereby deliver, order, and sign our decision, the Court Records bearing witness thereof.

PUBLICATION (…)