A broad representation of the judicial world gathered yesterday at LA RAZÓN to open a debate on the situation that Justice is going through in our country. With the independence of the Judiciary, the reforms underway and the challenges it faces, “Reflections from Justice” brought together a wide range of prestigious jurists at the newspaper’s headquarters in a day that included the participation of speakers from Javier Zaragozaprosecutor of the Supreme Court and one of the prosecutors of the “procés”; Manuel Aragonemeritus magistrate of the Constitutional Court and professor of Constitutional Law; María Jesús del Barcodean of the Madrid Courts and president of the Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM); Angel Juanes, former vice president of the Supreme Court; Alejandro Abascalmember of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) and magistrate; María Tardón, judge of the National Court; José María Fernández Seijomember of the CGPJ and magistrate; and Isabel Winkelsvice dean of the Illustrious Bar Association of Madrid and lawyer (ICAM).
With the president of LA RAZÓN, Mauricio Casals; the CEO, Andrés Navarro; and the director of the newspaper, Francisco Marhuenda, as hosts, attendees were able to listen to the x-ray that the eight jurists presenting on the most pressing problems that threaten Justice in Spain.
On the table were the reforms that the Executive is working on in relation to providing instructions to prosecutors – a draft that the Executive approves this Tuesday in the Council of Ministers – and also the change in the career access model. In relation to the first issue, the majority of the speakers agreed on the need to assume the current model in Europe and in many Latin American countries where prosecutors direct the investigation of cases.
Independence of the investigating prosecutor
Now, speakers such as María Tardón, Javier Zaragoza or Manuel Aragón, warned that The Fiscal Ministry must be modified so that the project has clear independence. “The designation of the State Attorney General has to be established in another way, demanding requirements, prohibitions and parliamentary designation that guarantees a consensus. As long as that is not done, the investigation should not be entrusted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office,” said Aragón.
However, Ángel Juanes and Judge José María Fernández Seijo denied that this reform affects judicial independence. “Another thing is how it is articulated,” said Juanes, who also advocated for judges to limit their freedom of expression. “It is as important to be impartial as to appear impartial”held.
“I would like to know why a modification of access to the judicial career affects judicial independence. Aspects in which I am critical can be discussed, such as the integration of substitute judges in the career (…), but, having said that, I do not know why judicial independence is now affected,” said the former vice president of the high court.
“These reforms are a torpedo in the waterline”
In relation to the Government’s reforms, the member Alejandro Abascal clarified that the reality of these major modifications cannot be “disconnected” from the current political moment, while Zaragoza added that those projects that are unacceptable are unacceptable. “undermine the judicial system.”
“These reforms are a torpedo in the waterline of judicial independence (…). It seems to me that right now, especially the attribution of the direction of the investigation to prosecutors, it’s nonsense because it needs a very broad political consensus and, as it is designed, it does not satisfy the minimum standards required by the Council of Europe,” he said.
Judge María Tardón stated that the risks warned by Zaragoza have not yet been implemented and that, if there is no opportunity for all these reforms to be applied, judicial independence “will remain firm no matter what happens.”
“We have to defend our independence”
On the contrary, Judge Seijo was in favor of the reform in order to include 1,112 substitute judges in the career, some of whom have been practicing for more than a decade. “There is an interim Justice that, in general terms, is fulfilling all its functions“, he noted. Seijo himself addressed another of the major issues discussed in the debate, related to accusations of “lawfare” by the political class.
The CGPJ member explained, in this regard, that the “tensions” that the judges face have been “permanent” and that the training of the judges allows them, precisely, to “manage the little storms in glasses of water of instrumentalization by one or the other”.
However, Judge María Jesús del Barco responded to that criterion and recalled that the judges have been tried to remain silent. “Of course we judges are obliged to defend the rule of law. We have to defend our independence, but not for us, but for the citizens. It is your right. And they can rest assured because they have independent judges,” reasoned Del Barco, in line with Abascal, who, paraphrasing the president of the Supreme Court, Isabel Perelló, stated that “judicial independence is not a corporate privilegebut the guarantee of the citizens”.
The judges, “in the spotlight”
The same criterion was defended by the vice dean of the Illustrious Bar Association of Madrid, Isabel Winkels, who emphasized that these criticisms represent a “decrease in citizens’ confidence in Justice”. In line, he recalled that the Bar Association’s public attention was drawn to the fact that this term was introduced for the first time in the government agreement signed by the PSOE and Junts.
Javier Zaragoza recalled that he was put “in the spotlight” when he was summoned to a congressional investigative commission. In this regard, he explained that pointing out to the judges as if they were making a use “torticero of the law”, It brings “tremendous institutional damage” while putting “the foundations of the system itself at risk.” Juanes replied that the investigative commissions must be placed in their context since they are used to disqualify the opponent, “be it one or the other.”
Faced with this allegation, Aragón warned that there are some clear attempts to “politicize Justice”, At the same time, he called it “unpresentable” to talk about “lawfare” to attack Justice operators.