Madrid, 8 October 2026 — Judge Beatriz Biedma told the Audiencia Nacional that, after noticing surveillance near her daughters’ school, she had felt intimidated and frightened. She said that people had repeatedly appeared there claiming to be her “brother” or her “secretary”. She stressed that she had neither a brother nor a personal secretary.
The testimony was given before investigating judge Santiago Pedraz as part of proceedings examining alleged attempts to influence judicial investigations. Biedma avoided attributing the observations personally to any specific defendants. Asked about it, she said she could not say whether Leire Díez or other named individuals were behind them.
Court sources confirmed that Biedma had been admitted to the proceedings as an injured party (“perjudicada”). This status allows her to take part in the case, but does not establish that anyone committed an offence. The court also has reports from the Guardia Civil including an analysis by the Unidad Central Operativa. It cites witness statements about contacts between alleged intermediaries and members of a clan known in the province of Badajoz . The files also contain a handwritten note dated 25 March 2025 . According to sources close to the court, these leads are not currently considered evidence, but starting points for further investigations.
The proceedings are examining whether, and to what extent, targeted measures were organised to influence ongoing or past investigations. At present, statements have been collected and indications documented. It remains unclear who is alleged to have ordered or carried out the surveillance. Judge Pedraz is continuing the investigation; no decisions on charges or further measures have yet been made.
Political interpretations and assessments remain speculative for now. According to media reports, the defendants deny any criminal involvement. The justice system is concerned with distinguishing between permissible information-gathering, improper conduct towards public officials and possible interference with proceedings. The case is being closely followed in Madrid because it raises questions about protecting investigators and the limits of private investigations surrounding politically sensitive cases. No concrete conclusions about who was responsible for the reported events have yet been substantiated.
Editor: Mira Cadena (Article created with AI assistance).