On the irrationality of some experts (part 4: the interview)

Return to Part 1: On the irrationality of some "experts" (Part 1)

This is the transcript (translated into English) of an investigative interview conducted in February 2026 by a Spanish newspaper. For reasons of procedural strategy and because the criminal case remains open, its publication is independent and the interviewer's identity is kept confidential. This document summarizes the key points of the complaint regarding crimes and institutional obstruction within the university setting.

INTERVIEW: "The Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC) Labyrinth: Scientific Rigor or Institutional Fraud?"

Journalist: Carlos, you are an aeronautical engineer who has decided to bring the leadership of a public university to a criminal court. Doesn't it seem disproportionate to pursue through criminal channels what appears, to any observer, to be a simple administrative disagreement over a thesis?

Carlos Pimentel: We are no longer facing a debate of ideas and abstractions, but rather a violation of the penal code. The criminal path is activated when the administration, instead of evaluating, fabricates documents. My research has been validated by the international scientific community with four articles—two of which were published in first-quartile journals—as well as a patent application. This blockage is not academic; it is a web of falsehoods used to cover up internal irregularities.

J: In your account, a key document appears that you label as "apocryphal". That is a very strong word in an institution that thrives on rigor. How can you prove that this coordinator's report is nothing more than a fabrication intended to obstruct your thesis?

CP: The most compelling evidence has been provided by the Public Prosecutor's Office itself in its recent filings, where it literally admits that the report is "effectively apocryphal". The program coordination supplanted the functions of the Doctoral School, issuing an administrative judgment on behalf of a body that never actually reviewed the file. In legal terms, that is usurpation of functions and documentary falsification.

J: If the Prosecutor admits the document is false, why hasn't the case moved toward an immediate trial?

CP: Here we enter an alarming legal contradiction. The Prosecutor recognizes the falsehood but suggests there was "no intent to cause harm". As a citizen, I ask myself: How can there be no intent to harm if that false document is the sole legal basis the university uses to deny me my doctoral degree and block my professional career for nearly four years? Intent is implicit in the alteration of the official truth. This has already been reported to the State Attorney General's Office.

J: You mention that the file sent by the university to the Court was "unpaginated". Is this a simple office error or is there something more?

CP: Sending a file of dozens of pages without numbering is a tactic of obstruction of justice. It prevents the traceability of documents and makes it easier for key evidence to get lost in the disorder. It is a lack of respect for judicial public trust that only benefits those wishing to hide the truth.

P: Let's talk about OLAF in Brussels. Why take this to the European Union's anti-fraud office? What do European funds have to do with a doctoral thesis?

CP: It matters a great deal when the alleged use of professional profiles in projects funded by European funds without the researchers' consent is detected. I have reported that my name and profile were used to justify a grant in at least one project that I am unaware of and in which I had no participation. This is no longer an office dispute; it is a potential fraud against the financial interests of the European Union, which would highlight the systemic use of document falsification within the university.

J: You denounce a political link: the relationship between the program coordinator and the previous Rector during his re-election campaign. Do you believe your file was sacrificed for electoral interests?

CP: The facts are compelling. Both the coordinator and the director of the Doctoral School at that time were part of the Rector's campaign team. Approving a false report to "close" my case avoided an academic scandal on the eve of seeking re-election. The conflict of interest is flagrant.

J: The new Rector ordered the withdrawal of the lawsuit against you. It seemed like the beginning of a solution. Why does the blockage continue?

CP: Because the intermediate structure has not changed. The new Vice-Rector for Research, to whom the review of the case was delegated, should have reviewed the situation with impartiality, but did not—likely because he comes from the same institute as the directors who refused to review my research. Therefore, the current administration continues to base its decisions on the apocryphal report that the Prosecutor's Office has already discredited. It is institutional "Gatopardism": changing something so that everything stays the same. In fact, the person who issued the apocryphal report remains in office under the current administration.

J: An Investigating Court initially stated this is an "administrative matter" and not a criminal one. Are you not forcing the judicial machinery to give relevance to this case?

CP: A false document in a public file is not an "administrative procedure"; it is a crime of documentary falsification, categorized in most penal codes of territories, countries, or kingdoms with a Rule of Law. The Prosecutor himself has admitted in his writings that the report is "indeed apocryphal". If justice recognizes the document is false but refuses to prosecute it under the pretext that "there was no intent to harm," it sends a dangerous message of impunity for any public institution.

J: You have requested the dismissal of your court-appointed defenders. Why dispense with those who are supposed to protect you?

CP: Because the defenselessness came from within. My solicitor did not inform me of a critical judicial notification, which caused us to miss the legal deadline to appeal the Prosecutor's ruling regarding the "lack of intent to harm". Naturally, the lawyer also failed to file the appeal to which I was entitled. When your own defense silences deadlines, you no longer have a defender, but an obstacle.

J: Do you believe the bar association that assigned your defense and the university have a common interest in this not transcending?

CP: Absolutely. The bar association seems to protect the corporatism of its members over the citizen's right to a defense, and the university seeks to avoid EU sanctions and irreparable reputational damage. Both seem to prefer that the case dies from the complainant's exhaustion.

J: That is why you are requesting a defense from Madrid.

CP: Exactly. To break the circle of local interests and "cronyism," I need a technical defense that is not afraid to confront the university's power structure. Justice should be blind, but in this case, it seems to have too many local commitments.

J: The investigating judge says this is an "administrative" issue. What would you say to the magistrate in the second instance?

CP: I would tell them that documentary falsification committed by public officials can never be an administrative matter. If we allow universities to issue false documents with impunity, we are demolishing trust in the public system. The administrative route is for discussing a grade; the criminal route is for punishing official lies.

J: Two years of fighting, without a degree, and with an open judicial process from across the Atlantic. Have you thought about giving up?

CP: Giving up is accepting that fraud is stronger than scientific merit. I am an engineer; my work is based on physical laws that cannot be falsified. If I allow my career to sink because of an apocryphal document, I would be betraying the ethics of my profession and the years of effort put into my research.

P: What is the next legal step?

CP: I have appealed to the Spanish Ombudsman for a second time, and to the State Attorney General's Office. I will not stop until the cause is prosecuted. The recognition that the report is false is only the beginning; now there must be legal consequences for those who issued it and tried to use it to close the case through the administrative route.

J: If the Spanish judicial system ultimately turns its back on you, what remains?

CP: I have European justice and international public opinion. Science is global, and the ethical standards of a European university cannot be below those of an international court. Scientific truth always surfaces and, at this point, that no longer seems to be up for discussion; it is the legal truth that I am pushing for now.

J: If tomorrow the university offers you the doctoral degree in exchange for dropping all complaints, would you accept?

CP: Definitely not. That possibility has been exhausted since the new administration decided to follow the same path as the previous one. The degree is a consequence of work and effort, not an object of negotiation. Justice is not negotiable. My commitment is to transparency and scientific rigor; accepting an under-the-table deal would validate the very system of arbitrariness I am fighting. To tell the truth, obtaining academic titles has never been a motivation for me. What I would seek in a future civil lawsuit is compensation for damages.

J: You have been very frontal in your denunciations of the case through electronic media, including your professional profile. Do you not consider that this could be counterproductive for your career?

CP: It is a risk I assumed from the beginning. When you are at a disadvantage, you have to use all the means at your disposal, and social media has been a great ally. Furthermore, I also see it as a form of protection or shielding. I am not interested in collaborating professionally, whether in industry or academia, with anyone who counts the abuses I am reporting among their practices. On the other hand, I have found sufficient moral support for my cause, even from within the university, although for obvious reasons, they cannot externalize it.

J: One last question: What would you say to other students or researchers who find themselves in a similar situation?

CP: For now, I would tell them to document every step, not to accept verbal "reports," and not to be afraid to question authority if it departs from the law. The university belongs to society, not to those who occupy the offices at any given moment.

DISCLAIMER

Legal Notice: The content of this interview is based strictly on the legal position, facts, and documentary evidence provided by Mr. Jesús Carlos Pimentel García within the framework of Preliminary Proceedings 2267/2025-E before Investigating Court No. 7 of Barcelona.

Presumption of Innocence: All mentions of alleged crimes of documentary falsification, usurpation of functions, concealment, and malfeasance must be understood under scrupulous respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence of the reported persons until a final judgment is rendered.

Documentary Basis: Statements regarding the "apocryphal" nature of certain administrative reports are based on the opinion issued by the Public Prosecutor and the Decree of the Inspection of the State Attorney General's Office, which are in the possession of the complainant.

Purpose: This publication has a purely informative purpose and is an exercise of the right to freedom of expression and criticism regarding the functioning of public institutions. It does not constitute a judicial sentence nor a personal attack devoid of a factual basis.

Reservation of Actions: The author reserves the right to update this information as the resolutions of the competent courts and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) progress.