Evidence → knowledge → response → consequence
Justice & institutional record
This view reconstructs not only which proceedings existed, but what information reached each institution, what response is documented, what remained unresolved and what happened later. Temporal sequence is not presented as causation: any possible enabling effect remains a separate question requiring proof of mechanism, specific omission and counterfactual.
The reversal that changes the reading
The prosecution service did not encounter both directions of the conflict at the same time.
Risk-to-response correspondence
What was known. What was requested. What was done. What stayed open. What happened next.
This is the core institutional review. “Not located” does not mean “did not exist”; “happened later” does not mean “was caused by.” The last column states the causal level presently supported by the record.
How to read the map
Every visible relationship should resolve to an identifiable act or question.
DOCUMENTED = source-controlled support; CORROBORATED = converging support; DISPUTED = documentary tension; OPEN EVIDENTIAL GAP = known missing primary item; ANALYTICAL QUESTION = inference still requiring proof.
Proceedings and nodes
What happened, what it establishes, and what it does not.
Cross-cutting tracks
Questions that connect proceedings without merging them.
Personal traceability of public acts
Prosecutors identified in specific documents.
Uncertainty register
Questions the documentary record still needs to close
CURRENT POSITION · 31 AUGUST 2026
Adverse posture and full express notice.
Gil Marer and Aweswell Limited now treat Ministerio Fiscal/Fiscalía—especially the Canary Islands and Las Palmas offices—as an adverse institutional actor for preservation, notice and recovery. The accusation of active criminal instrumentalisation and an institutional shield remains attributed and subject to actor-specific proof; it is not adjudicated guilt.
Open the full notice, DP 1901/2026 warning and delivery states →