GARZÓN FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE MYSTERIOUS FUTURE dealt treacherously The hot topic today is the appearance of Judge star in his own right and others, Baltasar Garzon, as a defendant, before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS), for an alleged case of corruption, committed during the investigation conducted on the record known as "general cause against Franco."
It should be explained, first, what is the transgression, second events are being prosecuted in third place if Garzon has transgressed, in my view, and finally a small view of the whole thing.
1 The judicial malfeasance, briefly, is regulated in the Criminal Code in Articles 446 to 449. Basically, the common element of various types of malfeasance is implemented in that the judge makes a decision, knowing that it is not fair. But the concept of "fair" does not refer to generic ideal of justice, personal and subjective that everyone has. Is whether the decision the judge has or has no legal support to justify and protect him legally speaking, the judicial ruling. That is, the judge who it has to make a formal decision and material unlawful, and fully aware of who is following a crooked path in its resolution.
2 The facts legally relevant to the case was opened on 16 October 2008, when Judge Garzón declares itself to authorize the opening of 19 graves with remains of executed by Franco. The Auto by which it has jurisdiction, 68 folios, and recognizes the essential fact that there will be no criminal liability to debug the death of the alleged instigators and perpetrators of these acts. In any case, Garzon asked the famous death certificates, the most famous of Franco, although there were 34 other amply credited his death.
So, the Attorney (Javier Zaragoza), uses the car for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the offenses have been prescribed by the passage of time and be a specific Act of 1977, by which the atrocities of those times considered political crimes. Thanks to this law, those who insist on judging by the events Carrillo Paracuellos Jarama, there are face down on the same grounds, as well as by the application of the principle of retroactivity, which makes it impractical to consider them crimes against humanity, because the legitimate penal code at that time, the Republican, did not anticipate such crimes.
In any case, Garzon, fully aware of this resource, its content, and their legal training, is supposed, he knew very much that actually was not authorized to open the " general cause against Franco " ¸ this and how they coined the Fiscal Zaragoza, incidentally, is not characterized precisely by its sympathy with the conservative positions.
Still, Garzon continued to take decisions, authorizing the opening of graves, including the prominent historians believe that Lorca was buried, and that subsequently stalled, thanks to another resource for the prosecution, by the Full Court.
The events conclude in November 2008 to decide Garzón himself, and given that the TS would be incompetent, inhibited in 43 courts of instruction, all of whom have filed the case on the grounds that the facts are prescribed and there is no criminal liability debug.
3. Say if a judge has transgressed or not is frankly prove complex because it requires full aware that the Judge hearing the injustice being committed. That said, from a technical standpoint, there are certain rules well known to the students and that this court has overlooked. Surprisingly Garzón, in Order for which the record begins, and warn that it will not be found criminally liable. Consequently, if so, evidently as a result of the passage of time, should have applied Article 130.1 of the Penal Code to extinguish any criminal liability as a result of the death of the accused, under Article 299 of the Criminal Procedure Act, establishing, for the opening of a summary that " constitute the record the actions to prepare for trial and practiced to learn and investigate the perpetration of the crime with all the circumstances that may affect your score, and the culpability of offenders, ensuring its people and financial responsibilities thereof. " If, as is evident, there is no criminal, much as you want, and devastating logic, the crime goes unpunished, and that is why so automatically proceedings are closed.
Thus Garzón had to take into account that the statute of limitations, both the time and the 1977 Amnesty Law, which states in Article VI that " Amnesty determine in general the extinction of criminal liability arising from the penalties imposed or that may be imposed as a principal or accessory "whose purpose was precisely to avoid such revisory procedures. Judge
you readers, if this is prevariación or not.
4 º My opinion on this, as is evident iurisconsulto. But like everything in life, there is some policy that prevents impregnation view this matter in greater perspective, something to which I refuse because I believe that law and justice are values \u200b\u200bmore weight than democracy itself, but to be the latter is required to produce the first.
Some Judge Garzon is a persecutor of dictators through the world, for others an opportunist looking for a photo, to a great champion of the fight against terrorism and for others the judge that " conforms its decisions to the current situation "in relation to the latest government negotiating with terrorists. But whatever it is, is a judge, irrespective of their intentions, Article 117.4 of the English Constitution states that " not exercise functions other than those listed ... and that is expressly allocated to them by law "
not want to deny the desires relatives of the deceased on the Republican side of the burial with full name to their ancestors, but to do so, the proper course is administrative. Very different thing is whether the administration itself does not satisfy the requests of the associations of families buried in pits. It's as simple as the mayor of the municipality so permits or, failing that, direct a letter to the Court of Guard stating the existence of the grave and telling it applies referred to the removal of corpses.
This is
