A good point Brietta. This was not the position when the McCanns were made arguidos. It would appear that the change in law means that evidence of a far more substantial nature is now a pre-requisiite to making someone an Arguido than was required re the McCanns. (A 'dream' probably wouldn't qualify nowadays)
On the other hand (from memory) - I understand 'witnesses' can ASK to be made arguidos - I presume to give themselves protection that doesn't exist as 'witnesses'.
Just as a matter of interest - if that is the case - do we actually know whether the current arguidos were declared arguidos by the PJ , or requested that status themselves?
Spoil-sports, these legislators ...
Taking up the theme of your post more seriously, much was made at the time (that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos) that the arguido status was applied that arguido status is for the protection of the accused, and part of that protection is that arguido interviews are not recorded.
We know that they are recorded because we've read the record, but still, there is something in the claim.
Yes, records are kept of arguido interviews, but (judging by the record we read) scarcely complete or full records.
More significantly, nothing said to police in police interviews may be used
in court against an arguido if the arguido is charged and taken to court, unless, whatever has been said to the police is
repeated in court.
One of the bones of contention in the Cipriano trial was that Joao and and his sister both exercised their right of silence in court, yet "confessions" made to police formed a part of court proceedings.
That is where the protection (when things work as they
should) comes in.