“I don’t know anything about the Arabian Super Cup contract”

“Can you explain this to me?”

The judge agreed to the Justice Department’s request – although she has not yet set a date – and He explained to the former director of the RFEF that this was something “profitable” for him.. “You came as a witness with an obligation to answer truthfully and theoretically, without having full knowledge of the case. “I believe that what is most appropriate, I insist, will be for your rights and, above all, for the preservation of your right to protection, is that you effectively suspend this declaration in view of what the Department of Justice requires,” he said.

Rocha said he doesn’t understand why his status was changed to investigation. “Can you explain this to me? Please, because I don’t understand it,” he said.

Rocha claims to have “no official evidence of his procedural situation”

The man from Extremadura still “does not have formal evidence of his procedural situation” as a result of the “Brody case”, which last week turned from a witness to an investigation, and asked “that this new procedural situation be brought to him as soon as possible.” as far as possible to ensure the full exercise of their right to defence.”

“At this time, Pedro Rocha’s legal team still does not have formal evidence of his new procedural situation, which is only known what was told to him out loud when he testified as a witness last Friday in the Court of Instruction No. 4 of Majadahonda. “, noted the communications department of Extremaduran.

This “He does not know what he is accused of and on what basis he is accused.”so that it would not be possible to make progress in his defense or – if necessary – to appeal this indictment document”, and, as his team explains, this change in procedural conditions occurred when “he answered the prosecutor’s questions in the case “This is so, They note that The economic commission of the RFEF checks the expenses, not the income of the subject,” they clarify.

“This change in procedural status – he was informed that he was moving from a witness to a ‘person under investigation’ – should be intended to guarantee his right to defense, since as a witness he cannot even provide evidence in the trial,” they said. add.