Hi all,
view of the controversy that has raised the complaint by the Supreme Court, I would summarize my opinion about this, given that since 2008 we discussed the issue in a post larger.
that as it was already mentioned at that time there was something irregular in the opening of criminal proceedings (and I say irregular and unlawful, which is not necessarily the same), it seems appropriate to lead to the same thing, but to bring those legal arguments to the thread of another thought, which is to show, from my point of view, what's important. This, I believe, as in any legal proceedings, are facts and your qualification, leaving everything else as secondary. The facts, which I see are:
- Garzón opened a criminal to find victims of Franco's repression.
- justifies that it is competent to do it and not judge each place branding the deaths as a result of the commission of a crime of genocide and crimes against humanity (as the National Court has jurisdiction to prosecute these crimes, but not murder "common", so to speak).
- Garzón obvious that the officers responsible for those acts are dead (and remember that you can not open criminal cases against dead) and even sought the death certificate of Franco to verify this point.
- Some political parties and associations ultraconservative ideology who complain against their performance on the grounds that to continue the cause, was prevaricate (make a decision knowing the injustice).
- The Supreme Court declared admissible the complaint and two others, one in relation to that did not fail to instruct a case against Emilio Botin having received sponsorship for a conference in the U.S. and another by eavesdropping on conversations with lawyers clients in the context of the plot Gürtel and undue delay.
From these facts have led to many debates arising from the left and right, some defending the actions of the judge and, most importantly, harshly criticizing and insulting those who do not, and others wanting to be guilty and the judge National Court. These discussions have seen everything from journalistic opinions about the ability to instruct Garzón right or wrong Where you go, opinions criticizing the alleged civil guard detachment that is the judge of this group, criticism or praise their way through politics, old grudges, new filias up mass rallies in favor of the Republic where the Supreme Court stated as "Franco" and "accomplice of the torturers."
What I mean is not discussed in depth is, of course, the reality of the relevant facts. Personally I care little who is the one who sued one or another judge and his reasons, what matters is whether the judge has done right or wrong and that end is not yet resolved, from what I understand to talk about what else is absolutely useless and superfluous, another excuse to fill hours and hours of televised debates in which journalists without any legal training categorically say on proceedings.
from the facts, my opinion:
- The actions of Garzon commented on all three fronts are cast doubt on its correctness, as stated in the post "Garzón" and as confirmed by the contributions of the complainants.
- Offer certainly not necessarily mean you have sinned. For example, in the case of competition for rating actions as genocide or crimes against humanity is discussed and controversial legal doctrine, so it hardly can be transgressed by picking an option that offers interpretation of the law, now other elements to consider, there may be some misconduct (eg, knowing that those responsible, for reasons of age, are dead. It would be similar whether Garzón himself opened a case against Pizarro and Cortes, under universal justice for their crimes against indigenous peoples of the Americas).
- This Sivra to point out that I'm not saying that Garzón has transgressed (not for me to say) because it is an issue that is unclear. But precisely because it is not, I do not think it wrong that a court will shed light on the matter.
- Garzón advocates at public think they are wrong, by the way, front, complaining about the fact that things are clarified and not a conviction for trespass.
With all this, I am very concerned about the polarization of the English political spectrum on this issue and the vehemence with which they attack or defend a judge who, regardless of what they say one or the other, has acted in a certain way and that is what will to prosecute. I worry because it makes me wonder what interests are behind to put much meat on the grill in this area.
However, before looking for malicious purposes, you should take the pre-electoral period in which we live. I think the PSOE Zapatero has found the key to his electoral victory in a predominantly left-wing, which is to spur the electorate polarized society and fostering confrontation. And this debate, proclamations the Republic and many other things we've seen these days, I think that answers that, obviously, again, that what matters is the act of the accused and not the political circumstances of the environment.
Nothing else, we are sooner rather than later.
http://cineybso.com visit 
0 comments:
Post a Comment