FOUR COMPLAINTS, ZERO INVESTIGATIVE STEPS

In parallel with the vertical closure of the appeals, Apolozan tried for five years the other avenue the law offers to those who claim to have been the victim of offences committed by officials: to report them.

The series is documented piece by piece: the complaint of December 2016 against those responsible for the AEAT file — returned without investigative steps, as this Story already recounted (A.43); the complaint of August 2018 concerning investigating court No. 2 and the Provincial Court (A.58); that of August 2021 against investigating court No. 3 (A.56); that of October 2021 against investigating court No. 1 (A.57). Four complaints, before different prosecutors and courts, over five years.

The common result: no investigative steps on record. Not a statement taken, not a file requested, not a cross-check of the postal series that any official would have completed in an afternoon. The replies — where there were any — were dismissals and inadmissions with no substantive examination of what was reported.

An isolated silence is a criterion. Twenty silences oriented in the same direction are a system. The evidentiary value of this series lies in no individual piece: it lies in the series itself — in the statistical impossibility that four different bodies, over five years, should coincide in not taking a single investigative step on documented complaints, unless the answer was decided before reading them.