The Court of First Instance and Instruction number 2 of Puerto de la Cruz (Santa Cruz de Tenerife) has condemned the national newspaper ABC and one of its editors for illegitimate interference with the right to honor of magistrate César Romero Pamparacuatro, by falsely publishing that the judge was being investigated for falsehood in the Unión case. According to the ruling, they must jointly indemnify the magistrate, current head of the Court of Instruction number 1 of La Laguna, with 30,000 euros.
In addition to the compensation, the sentence obliges the newspaper ABC to publish in its paper edition, the day after the resolution becomes final - it is a resolvable resolution - the heading and the ruling, in several pages and sections of the newspaper and under the headline “Condemnation of the newspaper ABC and Javier Chicote for injury to the right to honor of magistrate don César Romero Pamparacuatro”.
As the judicial resolution summarizes, on December 14, 2015, in the national edition of ABC, in the Spain section, and occupying “completely pages 28 and 29”, two pieces of information were published under two headlines “in large typography and in bold”, including subtitles, the first of which was 'A judge, a secretary and two civil guards falsified the biggest corruption case in Lanzarote', and the second 'The actions of the officials may lead to the annulment of the case'.
Likewise, according to the ruling, in that same newspaper and date, and in the section 'A los cuatro vientos', a loose article was published under the title 'Lanzarote, Unión case: siege of a judge, a secretary and two civil guards'.
The sentence states that when the newspaper published this information regarding the summary known as the Unión case, the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, the only body competent to charge crimes against a practicing judge in the islands, was not conducting any investigation against magistrate Pamparacuatro, and the judge who then assumed the instruction of this case (Rafael Lis, after Pamparacuatro's change of destination) had at no time filed charges against his colleague. “That is why in no way can it be argued that there was any judicial investigation against the plaintiff, nor that any indication of criminal responsibility against him emerged from any order”, the sentence says.
The ruling concludes that the conduct of the media and the journalist who signed the information was not diligent, and therefore the information was not truthful in what concerns qualifying that he is being investigated and that there are indications against him by attributing criminal significance to him regarding the irregularities in the judicial investigations in which he had participated”.
The sentence adds that the media “did not act diligently and that with the aforementioned headlines, it fundamentally limited itself to spreading simple rumors or inventions that discredited the judicial processes that were being followed on certain corruption cases, for which it defamed those who participated in the investigation and the instruction of such cases, specifically, the plaintiff here." "As they are not truthful, since it does not appear that the defendant acted diligently to verify that his statements corresponded to reality, the interference in the honor of the plaintiff is illegitimate and disproportionate”, he adds.
However, the sentence is subject to appeal before the Audiencia de Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
