Cristela Georgescu disputes the prosecutors’ arguments for extending Călin Georgescu’s pre-trial detention, which appeared in the press. „The surveillance warrant only targeted the public space”

Adaugă-ne ca sursă preferată

Urmărește-ne în Discover

In a video uploaded to Călin Georgescu’s Facebook account, his wife says that „the surveillance warrant authorizes the interception and photography of us only in public spaces, not in our home.”

Cristela Georgescu once again stated that „neither our lawyers nor we, the family, received the document officially, only the press.”

„Whether it was intentional or not, I’ll leave that to you to judge for yourself,” added the wife of the former presidential candidate.

On Monday, the Bucharest Tribunal will judge the request to replace Călin Georgescu’s preventive arrest with house arrest or judicial control.

” If the press has access to judicial documents before the defense and those involved, it also has the minimum obligation of good faith to present the entire picture, not just a selective version in which an innocent man is presented as a criminal,” continues Cristel Georgescu.

Călin Georgescu taken out of the Central Detention Center on Tuesday for new hearings

Audio-video surveillance and photography, based on a warrant in public space

She says that „the prosecutors invoked the alleged attempt to destroy the surveillance equipment in our home as criminal behavior and the main argument for extending the preventive arrest. But, from the motivation published in the press, we read that the audio-video surveillance and photography were authorized based on a warrant exclusively in the public environment, not in the house where we live with our minor children.”

” The Court of Appeal received this warrant in the file and considered it ‘conclusive and useful’ for resolving the appeal. These are the judges’ words. But where is the analysis of this evidence in the motivation then? And how do the accusations in the new criminal case reconcile with the fact that surveillance was authorized only in the public environment? After all, were there such devices in our house? If so, based on what warrant were they installed? And if not, what equipment was to be disrupted or destroyed to justify a new criminal case? I do not find any explicit presentation of these aspects in the motivation given to the press”, continues Călin Georgescu’s wife.     

She also states that, „in the reasoning on page 29, the Court of Appeal finds that the new computer allegations do not currently reach the threshold of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the preventive measure.”

„Then why doesn’t this conclusion of the judges receive the same attention in the press as the prosecutors’ accusations?” concluded Cristela Georgescu .