The investigating judge had rejected Mazón's request, whom she had summoned as a witness, arguing that the figure of the 'assisted witness' does not exist in Spanish law. Now, the appeal is based on five key points, highlighting a «relevant procedural anomaly» in the timing of the reasoned statement.
Mazón's defense points out that the judge's decision deviates from the criteria previously maintained by both the TSJCV (through the order of December 23, 2024) and the Audiencia Provincial de Valencia (in its resolution of October 23, 2025), and even from what the investigating judge herself had previously expressed (order of May 5, 2025). These courts had indicated that a reasoned statement should occur at the end of the investigation, not in an intermediate phase.
This alteration of the procedural criterion that all courts, including that of Catarroja, had expressed, has led to a unique situation: on the one hand, the TSJ has clearly ruled on the non-existence of criminal responsibility for Mr. Mazón; but, on the other hand, all the proceedings carried out in the first instance with an impact on his position remain alive in the procedure.
Furthermore, the defense argues that this course of action has generated a «serious defenselessness» for Mazón, as proceedings affecting him have been carried out without him being able to intervene under conditions of defense. The maintenance of statements by members of his communication team after the reasoned statement is highlighted, without the possibility of appearing to know or challenge these actions.
The appeal also emphasizes that Mazón's interest in appearing is «legitimate and current», as the investigation remains open and the proceedings carried out could be reinterpreted or connected with future actions. The defense considers that Mazón's right to appear is not born or exhausted in an isolated procedural instant, but remains alive as long as the investigation is open and there is a possibility that the proceedings affect him.
Therefore, it is not about arguing that there are incriminating signs against Mr. Mazón, because this party does not affirm it. On the contrary: it expressly maintains that they do not exist. What is denounced is something different and legally very serious: that the instructor maintains alive an investigative dynamic that, despite formally denying the existence of criminal responsibility, continues to project itself on the personal, relational and decision-making sphere of Mr. Mazón with an orientation that can only be understood in terms of an eventual future construction of an imputation. That is to say, what is pursued in practice is denied in form.
Finally, the appeal proposes two coherent solutions: either to annul all investigative proceedings affecting Mazón, reducing his position to that of a mere witness, or to allow him to appear to fully exercise his right to defense against actions that have been ongoing for more than a year and cannot continue to occur «behind his back».
