ICALPA institutional correspondence: 2025–2026

The preventive warning about independence was already made to ICALPA

On 10 June 2026, in separate DIP 79/2026 and DIP 80/2026 communications, Gil Marer did not allege that pressure or interference had already occurred at ICALPA. He identified a preventive structural-risk hypothesis and requested reinforced safeguards for rapporteur independence and file integrity.

Source-controlled formulations already used: “objective risk of structural pressure and need to protect the rapporteur”; possible “informal approaches”, “third-party calls” and “non-procedural contacts”; and a request for the “maximum appearance and reality of independence, confidentiality, traceability and non-interference”.

The request also asked how any attempted contact, approach or pressure would be logged; what route a rapporteur or employee should follow after an external communication; and whether abstention, substitution or reinforced internal controls existed if an incident could affect the appearance of impartiality.

Future use: at Canary Council level, this should be framed as a documented preventive continuation: appointment of a conflict-cleared rapporteur with actual and apparent independence, willingness to pursue finite evidence, and institutional backing to resist any informal approach that may arise. No assertion is made that such an approach has occurred.