Critics of Judge Juan Carlos Peinado’s recent order argue that the demand for proof of travel is an unreasonable and potentially biased requirement that infringes upon the defendant's rights. By insisting on evidence that the defendant cannot provide through traditional means—specifically physical passport stamps—the court is effectively creating a 'devilish test' that places an impossible burden on the accused. This approach is seen by many legal observers and supporters of the Prime Minister as an attempt to exert excessive pressure on Begoña Gómez, rather than a neutral pursuit of justice.
This perspective highlights the danger of 'inverting the burden of proof,' where the defendant is forced to prove her own innocence or compliance with a negative, rather than the prosecution proving a violation. The defense’s point that the United Kingdom has moved to a digital border system is a factual reality that the court should acknowledge. Demanding physical stamps in an era of digital verification suggests a disconnect that critics argue is symptomatic of a broader, politically motivated obsession with the case. Such actions, they contend, undermine the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, the ongoing scrutiny of Gómez’s movements, including the judge's previous comments about the potential for her security detail to facilitate an escape, has led to accusations that the court is acting out of political bias. For those who hold this view, the judge’s actions are not merely about procedural compliance but are part of a pattern of harassment. By focusing on minor administrative details and threatening new charges, the court risks damaging public trust in the judiciary and turning a legal investigation into a tool for political conflict.