The party will end, but that of the ultras. Also judicial cases with political motivations, pronouncements by judges and magistrates on judicialized matters and crimes of offenses against religious feelings. The PSOE has registered this morning in the Congress of Deputies a bill to put an end to what the government understands as an unprecedented phenomenon carried out by extremist and authoritarian sectors, which is nothing more than “the systematic persecution and defamation of artists, creators, journalists and political adversaries perverting certain tools of the Rule of Law.” And it has decided to put the brakes on it with a law that cuts off the mechanisms of harassment.
No one can be caught by surprise because the Minister of Justice himself had been warning about the matter in parliament for some time when he said that “the perversion of the popular accusation by ultras and buleros is already a democratic problem” and that “far-right associations are perverting the figure of the popular accusation because they are persecuting, not crimes, but people, honest progressive politicians and their families.”
The initiative, to which elDiario.es has had access, aims for the popular accusation in judicial cases to be assigned to the oral trial phase and the initial formulation of the complaint and not to the investigation with the aim of putting an end to “the constant leaking of proceedings by accusations with political objectives and with abusive attempts to prolong and mediate a judicial process,” say socialist sources. The popular prosecution may appeal the dismissal order if it is not satisfied with the decision. The new norm also requires that in order to appear as a popular accusation there is a “concrete, relevant and sufficient link with the public interest protected in the corresponding criminal process.”
Under the protection of what will be an “Organic Law of Guarantee and Protection of Fundamental Rights against Harassment Derived from Abusive Judicial Actions”, it is also prohibited to carry out popular accusations against political parties and associations or foundations linked to them. In the same way, the obligation to reject complaints based on press clippings is established, something that is already part of the doctrine of the Supreme Court on the impossibility of opening a criminal process with journalistic information without the slightest indication of irregularities.
Likewise, the bill eliminates the crime of offenses against religious feelings provided for today in article 525 of the Penal Code and obliges judges to refrain from statements of political content. Failure to do so may result in disqualification. Therefore, the Organic Law of the Judiciary is reformed to include a new cause for abstention or recusal, so that when a judge or magistrate has publicly made statements in favor of or against political parties, unions, associations or other entities public or private, may not participate in a process in which these people or organizations are part.
And all because in the explanatory statement, the Socialist Group understands that we must put a stop to “the appearance of manifestly authoritarian sectors that, instead of seeking a contrast of points of view based on informed debates, seek the complete exclusion of the public life of those who hold contrary positions.” In other words, limit “the use of strategies openly harmful to the fundamental rights of those people and organizations opposed to the aforementioned sectors” that have generalized “situations of harassment against certain groups, such as artists, activists, creators and also representatives political·” which are intended to “limit their rights by making abusive use of institutions and certain legal provisions, whose configuration and real purposes are in no way intended to serve the harassment and exclusion strategies described here.”
The reform that is being promoted now, as established in its article 2, will require the modification of the Royal Decree of September 14, 1882, which approves the Law of Criminal Procedure so that popular action cannot be exercised by “the parties politicians and associations or foundations linked to them”, “legal persons or public entities of any kind and, in particular”, the Government and the General Administration of the State, the governments of the autonomous communities and those of local entities and their respective Administrations.
Those who intend to exercise popular action must act by virtue of a specific, relevant and sufficient link with the public interest protected in the corresponding criminal process. And, to this end, “at the time of appearing they must prove to the judicial authority the personal, social or professional relationship or link with the public interest that motivates their intervention in the procedure, as well as the relevance and sufficiency of said link.” However, the exercise of the popular action may be conditioned by the court to the provision of bail, “which must be proportionate to the economic means of the popular accuser, the nature of the crime and the damages and costs that may arise from the procedure, although it is already being processed. Bail will be required in any case when the prosecutor does not file the accusation,” according to the text.
The PP compares Sánchez with Maduro
The reaction of the PP has been almost immediate. In a statement sent to journalists, Alberto Núñez Feijóo’s party has compared Pedro Sánchez with the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. “That on the day on which Maduro intends to remain in power against the law, the Government of Spain is promoting control and intimidation of judges is quite symbolic,” the PP points out in its press release. “That they talk about ultras today after having remained silent regarding the situation in Venezuela is directly indecent,” they say.
“This measure is one more step in their strategy of laminating the judiciary, consummating their intention to remove instruction from judges and leave it in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office, and sowing discredit on the entire judiciary in the eyes of the citizens,” points out the PP. “The PSOE does not want to fight corruption, but rather those of us who denounce it,” he adds.
The PP concludes with a warning to the Government’s parliamentary allies: “Those who promoted a motion of censure to combat corruption want to end up shielding theirs by law. “Whoever supports initiatives of this nature will be complicit in this drift.”
Sumar calls for a complete reform of the Penal Code
Shortly after learning of the PSOE initiative, Sumar has claimed that some of the measures included in the proposal are part of what was negotiated with the socialists regarding the Action Plan for Democracy agreed between the two Government partners, although sources from the Ministry of Culture consider that with regard to freedom of expression the proposal is “incomplete and does not correspond to what was agreed upon within the Government.”
The negotiation for the democracy plan was led by the Minister of Culture, Ernest Urtasun, on behalf of Sumar. That is why sources from that department have indicated this Friday that the agreement signed with the government partner included, in addition to the repeal of the crime of offenses for religious reasons, “the repeal of the crimes of insult against high institutions of the State,” as well as “ the repeal of the crimes of insults and slander against the Crown.”
“We consider that the freedom of expression of Spanish citizens, creators and artists can only be protected in Spain by addressing this broader reform of the Penal Code as agreed between the two partners of the Government,” point out those same sources who recall that Sumar already has registered in Congress a much broader law in this regard. “From the Ministry of Culture we urge that in the parliamentary processing of both bills, freedom of expression be protected through a complete reform of the penal code as stated in the agreement between the two Government partners,” they add.
Podemos, for its part, has also regretted the “lack of ambition” of the reform and considers that “it will not serve to remedy the error of having given control of the General Council of the Judiciary to the PP and the most reactionary sectors of the judiciary.” He points out some “errors” in that text such as the “exclusion” of public administrations from the popular accusation that can endanger, they warn, their appearance in cases of sexist violence. To put an end to leaks, they also say, “the power of judges should be limited in the investigation phase and inspections and sanctions for judicial operators who incur them should be studied.”
The initiative has also received criticism from the four judicial associations. The conservative and majority Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM) affirms that this modification seems to seek “impunity” if it focuses on “currently open cases” and warns that it may be “unconstitutional.” The Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association, which calls itself independent, considers it “a profound error” to exclude judicial associations from popular action, while the progressive Judges and Judges for Democracy believes it is “misguided” to exclude political parties from the popular accusation or prevent this type of accusation from participating in the investigation phase, limiting itself to the oral trial, Europa Press reports.
Source: www.eldiario.es
