Some judges have long since abandoned the path of due process guarantees inherent in the principles of security and justice that prevail in the European Union.
The political activism of some sectors of the judiciary has been unleashed in an unusual and worrying manner since the promulgation of the amnesty law. The rebellion of the togas against its application has acquired dimensions of such intensity that it deeply affects our constitutional and democratic stability.
In addition to this issue, there are two criminal proceedings whose outcome has not been assessed in its true dimension by the political parties and public opinion. Its evolution could give rise to a political and institutional crisis hitherto unknown in our democratic history. I am referring to the proceedings opened before the High Court of Justice of Madrid against the Attorney General of the State and to the criminal proceedings currently being conducted by Judge Peinado, theoretically against Begoña Gómez, but which, with increasing clarity, points to the person of the President of the Government.
The informative note whose publication was ordered by the Attorney General was only intended to respond to information deliberately distorted by the chief of staff of the President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso. Her partner, after a thorough tax audit, ended up admitting that he had committed crimes against the Public Treasury and falsified documents. Anticipating the news that would necessarily trigger the judicialization of these criminal activities, he spread the rumor that it was the Prosecutor’s Office that had taken the initiative, an unusual action, to propose a compliance agreement to set the sentence. He added that the Attorney General had opposed this proposal. The Prosecutor’s note was only intended to respond to this false news by clarifying the reality of what happened. Where is the concrete intention to violate privacy, to divulge secrets already known or to violate your right to defense? However, the interested party and the Board of Directors of the Madrid Bar Association present separate complaints for crimes against privacy and disclosure of secrets that, for reasons of jurisdiction, correspond to the High Court of Justice of the Community of Madrid. The Attorney General of the State assumes responsibility for the publication of the informative note and the investigating judge, without further formalities, submits a reasoned brief to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court to which corresponds the competence to prosecute the facts attributed to high officials. of the State. In view of everything that has happened, only a distortion of the law can lead to formalizing an accusation. In any case, the involvement of such a high judicial power requires that the Plenary Assembly of the Court pronounce on such a crazy decision. Let’s wait and see what happens.
The other issue, with a greater political impact, affects, at least indirectly, the figure of the President of the Government. Court 41 of Madrid, presided over by Judge Peinado, took the initiative to open criminal proceedings against Begoña Gómez, wife of the President of the Government, at the request of the prestigious law firm Clean Hands. Other no less renowned groups have joined it, such as Iustitia Europa or Hazte Oír and, as expected, the political party Vox. All are specialists in the exercise, without rhythm or measure, of popular action.
The eccentricities, to put it another way, of Judge Peinado have occurred in a chain, causing astonishment in the judicial world. A script would be needed to comment on them. Just a few notes. For his own good, in violation of the law, he decides to deny the President of the Government the privilege of answering in writing, as a witness, the questions he wishes to ask personally or to the parties. He makes a media spectacle by invading the presidential complex of Moncloa and at the same time, stripping the president of his political investiture, recognizing only his status as the husband of the person under investigation with the legal consequence of being able to refuse to testify due to his family ties.
His latest decision disqualifies, for the moment, any person holding the status of judge. After a few days of reflection, he adopts a measure that demonstrates his ignorance of the judicial function or perhaps he announces the decisions he intends to take in the future. He decides to give the parties the video of the non-statement of the President of the Government who, as a witness and husband of the person under investigation, took advantage of his right not to testify. Ignoring the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court consolidated by the European Court of Human Rights, she maintains that silence can give rise to incriminating deductions. Such an argument penetrates the world of esotericism and constitutes one more element to reach the conclusion that the judge intends to implicate the President of the Government against all logic and reason. I hope that at least you have adopted the necessary technical measures to detect where the leak of the images comes from, if it occurs.
Of course, he once again demonstrates his ignorance and bias by ignoring the most fundamental principles of evidence assessment. The judgment of 26 July 2016 enshrines the doctrine that silence, as a procedural strategy, does not constitute incriminating evidence in the abstract. No evidence can be obtained even by introducing the questions that were supposed to be asked since the accused anticipated his intention not to answer any of the questions, regardless of their content.
Given the foreseeable inadmissibility of the complaints presented by the President of the Government and his wife Begoña Gómez against Judge Peinado, he has free rein to draw the conclusions he deems appropriate to present an imaginary presentation to the Supreme Court requesting the indictment of the President of the Government. Given the antecedents, I dare not predict the outcome.
Times and precedents allow me to entertain the worst omens. Some judges have long since abandoned the path of due process guarantees inherent in the principles of security and justice that prevail in the European Union. We are getting dangerously close to Bolivia. Ask Evo Morales. We know how Julius Caesar ended. A blind augur warned him of the danger that awaited him in the Senate on the Ides of March. There are many ways to eliminate the highest leaders. What I have described is only a personal wish. I hope and I would like to be wrong.
