In a nutshell under Article 277-1 the investigation would not have been eligible for reopening. It was stated at the time that the investigation could be reopened if new evidence was found. Therefore it was archived under Article 277-2.
although the filing order refers to the provisions of article 277-1......
what is pertinent is the content of the order and not a quoted legal provision.Now what is obviously underscored in that order is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had been convinced that the appellants did not commit any crime but because it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appellants.
It means that the archiving would have been determined under article 277-2 of the CPP, and not under the first paragraph of that article, although the latter is quoted in the order.
In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the order, that the collected evidence was sufficient to confirm that no crime was committed or that the then arguidos (here appellants) did not commit it in any sort of way (cf. quoted article 277-1).
The fact that the aforementioned “memorandum for the media”, published by the Attorney General office on the same day as the filing order, informed that the investigation could be reopened “if new evidence arose that could lead to serious, pertinent and consequential proceedings”, precisely points out that the order was issued pursuant to article 277-2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htm
