Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, has submitted airline tickets for a London trip to investigating judge Juan Carlos Peinado. The court had asked her for evidence about her use of her passport during the journey, which she said was connected to her daughter’s graduation in the United Kingdom. Her defense argues that the prosecution, not the accused, bears responsibility for proving any alleged wrongdoing.
Gómez’s legal team, represented by former minister Antonio Camacho, filed a formal objection while submitting the tickets. The defense says post-Brexit UK entry procedures generally do not produce the passport stamps sought by the court. It argues that requiring Gómez to establish the absence of criminal conduct would shift the prosecution’s burden of proof. The lawyers also maintain that the accusers have presented no evidence of a crime.
Article 24.2 of Spain’s Constitution frames the issue, protecting the presumption of innocence and safeguards against self-incrimination or compelled confession of guilt. Those guarantees do not make every request for a document automatically unlawful. The legal question is whether a request seeks routine verification of a factual claim or effectively compels the accused to help establish criminal liability. The prosecution must prove guilt with valid evidence, obtained with the required safeguards and addressing the impressive elements of the alleged offence.
A Supreme Court formulation in judgment STS 593/2026, dated 7 October 2026, states that a conviction must rest on valid evidence of guilt, obtained with the necessary guarantees and capable of supporting a reasonable inference about the facts and the accused’s participation. The standard focuses on the sufficiency and validity of prosecution evidence, not on whether a defendant has independently proved innocence. Gómez’s submission of travel tickets so accompanies, but does not resolve, the defense’s objection to the court’s request.
The case has drawn attention because of its high-profile nature and the wider debate over due process in investigations involving public figures. The government’s reaction to the court ruling involving David Sánchez, the Prime Minister’s brother, also centered on evidence and due process, as detailed in coverage of the government's defense of David Sánchez. The dispute over Gómez’s travel documents highlights the difference between a defense voluntarily submitting evidence and being required to establish that no offence occurred.
Filing the tickets does not determine whether an offence was committed. Under the constitutional structure, any finding of criminal liability must rest on sufficient, legally obtained evidence, while the presumption of innocence remains in force. The court’s consideration of the travel documents is part of the ongoing procedural dispute over what evidence an investigated person can be required to provide and where the burden of proof lies.
