The appeal, filed on April 10, 2026, is based on five main arguments. Firstly, the defense describes the judge's decision to elevate the reasoned statement to the Supreme Court before closing the investigation as a “significant procedural anomaly,” a fact that, according to Mazón, has altered the usual procedural criteria.
This situation has led, according to the defense, to a “serious lack of defense” for Mazón, as proceedings affecting him have been carried out without his ability to intervene and defend himself. Specifically mentioned are the statements by members of his communication team after the reasoned statement was elevated, without the possibility of appearing in the investigating court to review or challenge these actions.
As long as proceedings with procedural effectiveness remain integrated into the case, the affected party cannot be denied the possibility of appearing to defend their rights.
Mazón's lawyer argues that the legitimate and current interest in challenging proceedings deemed outside the framework set by the Audiencia de Valencia, such as questions about a sweater or a restaurant order, remains valid. These proceedings, according to the defense, could be subject to nullity.
Finally, the appeal emphasizes that, despite formal declarations denying criminal responsibility, the investigation remains focused on Mazón. This is evidenced by proceedings such as the statement by former Consell spokesperson, Ruth Merino, or the extension of the investigation to expand actions linked to his immediate circle, which makes the denial of his appearance incompatible with the right to defense.
