MEDIA · PUBLICATION → UNPUBLISHING → CUSTODY → EXPLANATION

Canarias7 published an accusation attributed to prosecutors. Days later the link returned 404. What happened editorially?

We do not claim the article was removed because of pressure, and we do not use it as proof of the Sun Park allegations. We ask a narrower question: what was published, what public or judicial document supported it, what changed afterwards, and what editorial record explains its removal?

What the preserved record shows

30 May 2022

The preserved copy identifies a Canarias7 · Courts article by Francisco José Fajardo headlined, in Spanish, “La Fiscalía Provincial acusa a Acosta Matos de falsificación y estafa procesal”.

What it reported

The article attributed to the Las Palmas Provincial Prosecutor’s Office an accusation against the chief executive of Construcciones Acosta Matos for alleged document falsification and attempted procedural fraud in a separate 2015 commercial dispute. It identified prosecutor Luis Estévez as the signatory of the prosecution submission.

2 June 2022

Contemporaneous emails preserved 404 and search-engine captures and told advisers that the link was no longer active. That establishes contemporaneous preservation of the change; it does not establish why it occurred.

6 June 2022

Aweswell emailed Fran.fajardo@canarias7.es directly with information concerning Construcciones Acosta Matos. No incoming response from that address was located in the Gmail corpus reviewed.

December 2024

Further communications were sent to several @canarias7.es addresses concerning an alert about RIC Private Equity and related actors. No incoming response from those addresses was located in the Gmail corpus reviewed.

Discipline: sent ≠ personally received ≠ read ≠ investigated. “No reply located in our Gmail” does not mean the newsroom took no internal action.

Why it appears in the Sun Park record

The article concerned a different commercial matter. We do not use it as a conviction, criminal history, character evidence, or proof that the same conduct occurred at Sun Park. Its narrower relevance is that in May 2022 a regional newspaper publicly reported a prosecutorial accusation involving the same business environment and issues of documents, signatures and litigation use. That justifies preserving and authenticating the publication and understanding its editorial history.

The question is not “why did Canarias7 protect someone?” That premise is not established. The question is: what document supported the publication, what happened next, and what objective editorial record explains the unpublishing?

The chain that should be reconstructable

PUBLICATION
URL, date/time, author, original version

BASIS
Prosecution filing / ruling / non-protected public or judicial record

CHANGES
Edits, corrections, right of reply

UNPUBLISHING
Date, CMS state/user, editorial or legal reason

AFTERWARDS
Correction, judicial outcome, editorial note or archive

OPEN MESSAGE

To Francisco José Fajardo, Canarias7 director Francisco Suárez Álamo, and Informaciones Canarias, S.A.

We publish these questions because the explanation may be entirely ordinary: a correction, a justified complaint, a procedural development, an archive policy, a legal issue, an editorial choice, or a later update. If that explanation exists, we want it displayed prominently.

We do not seek confidential-source identities or material protected by journalistic privilege. We seek only editorial and documentary traceability compatible with those protections.

Seven questions a record can answer

Does Canarias7 confirm that the article was published on 30 May 2022 under the preserved title and byline?
Without identifying confidential sources, what public or judicial document supported the statement that the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office was accusing the person concerned, and what was the proceeding reference?
Was the article amended, corrected or made subject to a correction/right-of-reply request? On what date?
When did it cease to be publicly accessible and what status, code or editorial reason appears in the CMS?
Was there a complaint, legal demand, communication from prosecutors, communication from Construcciones Acosta Matos, or communication from related third parties that forms part of the explanation for modification or removal? We are not asking for confidential journalistic sources.
Was there later a judgment, dismissal, acquittal, settlement or other development that corrected or superseded the report? If so, what record proves it?
Will Canarias7 preserve the original, version history, publication/unpublication logs and backups while these questions are verified?

The strongest editorial defence belongs on this page too

A newspaper may legitimately withdraw or update an article for legal, editorial, technical or accuracy reasons. A 404 does not prove pressure. A complaint by an affected party does not prove improper influence. Even an accurately published report may require updating when proceedings change. That is why this page does not infer the reason: it asks for the record that identifies it.

What we have not yet located

In the corpus reviewed we have not located the final judicial outcome of the proceeding described in the article, a public Canarias7 explanation for the removal, or an incoming response from the journalist or the identified Canarias7 addresses. These are gaps in our corpus, not claims that such records do not exist.

Correction and response

We expressly invite Francisco José Fajardo, Canarias7 and Informaciones Canarias, S.A. to identify any primary record that corrects this chronology. If removal resulted from a correction, judgment, justified complaint, technical error or editorial policy, that explanation should be as prominent here as the question.

Acosta Matos perimeter → · Ministerio Fiscal → · DP 1901/2026 →