You arrive this Friday in Lanzarote to present your latest book, "What are judges for?" tonight. The question is, does it have a rhetorical meaning?
I hope that citizens will be kind enough to buy the book, and they will see that the title is in question marks. We ourselves wonder what we are for. In reality, it is answered in a broad way. No one can ignore that it is a power of the State. This book recounts countless issues that go through conflicts of relevant social interests known throughout the world, to the daily divorce or the execution of the mortgage. That is to say, we serve for many things, because we have a lot of power and we have to know how to manage it well.
It is a book that does not suffer at all from self-criticism. You advocate for a change in the way judges practice.
We, in a somewhat indolent and ultimately suicidal way, have been facing a society that changes rapidly, with structures from the 19th century. The only modernization we have introduced is computer science and this has only served, for the moment, to increase the volume of papers. In such a way that a notification, which before was a single paper, is now like ten. The situation is serious, because major issues such as urban planning conflicts, capital flight, large-scale drug trafficking and large corruption schemes need a much more agile response than we can give today.
The slowness of Justice makes it much less fair, it is something that society complains about every day. Do you understand that the Spanish Justice system could be streamlined and resolve the problems in the Courts more urgently?
Not only are there formulas, but countries that introduced the judicial system to us, such as France, have evolved towards much more agile and updated systems. Of course, there is no perfect system, so no one should think that I am proposing a solution. But, of course, the current one is inexorably improvable, because we cannot continue like this. There will continue to be problems, but for example we need less paper and more presence of the judge in the phases of the conflict. It is absolutely fundamental.
You were referring to issues that fill the pages of newspapers, such as corruption cases. The "Unión" case is going through circumstances that have attracted a lot of attention. The decision of the General Council of the Judiciary to remove Judge César Romero Pamparacuatro, and in exchange replace him with a new judge, has greatly surprised society. How do you assess it?
This is one of the pathologies of the system. A matter of this nature could, with the current procedure, last, optimistically, five years. Our system prevents the perpetuation of jurisdiction of a judge for a long time. It does not prevent it in a radical way, but we would enter an area almost of a special judge. Therefore, I believe that in this specific case the judge could continue for a reasonable time, but in any case the judge can clear those 30,000 pages for the new judge, of which 25,000 pages will be absolutely useless, they will be pure paperwork of communications between some bodies and others. There may be about 5,000 pages, which is already good, that are important. He will have to bring the new judge up to date, tell her where the plot is going, and that the judge dedicates herself exclusively to that matter and that they appoint a support or reinforcement judge for the procedural matters. That is, for me, the solution that must be given to the matter. But there would also be no problem for César Romero Pamparacuatro to have continued for another three months. But he cannot become a special judge, which is prohibited by the Constitution.
Lately there has been a lot of talk about the politicization of Justice. What is your opinion about this situation?
Here there is a positive and a negative problem. The positive thing is that the Judicial Power in a democratic State of division of powers has the power or jurisdiction to control or supervise decisions of political bodies. These matters may be mistaken administrative decisions that will go to the contentious or criminal matters already of corruption and bribery. That is normal, there is no need to be scandalized, if not the opposite. If they were not persecuted, then we should worry. Therefore, the matter has a political profile, but it does not mean that Justice is politicized. Justice does its work on a matter of political content.
Then there are political matters in which Justice cannot intervene. I believe that asking for the minutes of the Council of Ministers indiscriminately by a judge cannot be done, because it is an invasion of political power. Another thing is that a specific minute is requested because there are suspicions that a crime could have been committed that day. I understand that there is a border between the judicial and the political.
Now, the second part is the most negative. When a matter of these characteristics, in which more or less relevant public servants intervene, reaches the Court, the mechanisms and the media are set in motion from outside. And, then, there is an intrusion and sometimes fierce attacks on the protagonists of the process, on those who try to do justice. This is, sincerely, politicizing in some way.
This has happened very recently with the release of an ETA member, Troitiño. Are you referring to cases like this?
Cases like this or corruption cases in which the media take sides. By taking sides, one of the ways to neutralize the judicial investigation is to attack the judge and turn him into a target of their anger. In the case of Troitiño, citizens have better criteria than some journalists. They should know that the ETA member has served 24 years in a regime of internment, which almost almost equates to isolation. It is not a trivial penalty.
Secondly, it is debatable and the Constitutional Court has it pending resolution whether the calculation made by the Audiencia in its first decision is correct or the calculation made by the Audiencia, following a jurisprudence of my chamber, but which is not binding, is more correct. Let's leave the matter in its legal and, why not, political terms as well, because terrorism worries us a lot. But not to the point to which they have taken the matter, of insulting the judges.
You were talking about that moment when the judge begins to be the object of pressure. What are the formulas to prevent this from happening?
We have a well-intentioned article 14 of the Organic Law through which we can request protection from the Council of the Judiciary for seeing our independence disturbed. Some judges have done that, but it remains more like a romantic or poetic declaration. Sometimes the red lines are crossed and the matter can be criminal, it can be a crime of slander or libel or even a crime against the administration of Justice. The Public Prosecutor's Office has to intervene there and prosecute it.
Then there are other pressures that more mature societies like the English would never allow. The journalist would be reproached by the Press Council. In North America, if the matter on which it is intended to exert pressure is a matter that corresponds to the jury, it can be a crime with large prison sentences.
RELATED ARTICLES
[Martín Pallín affirms that in investigations such as the "Unión" case, "power tends to put all possible obstacles"->53295]
[Romero Pamparacuatro will appeal the decision of the Judicial Power that removes him from the "Unión" case->53235]
[EDITORIAL: "Why?"->53288]
[The General Council of the Judiciary rejects the extension of the commission of services and leaves Romero Pamparacuatro out of the "Unión" case->53156]
