The Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM), the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), and the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI), on one hand, and the Association of Prosecutors (AF) and the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors (APIF), on the other ―all except the progressive Judges for Democracy (JJpD) and the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF)― have criticized the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) for what they consider a lukewarm response, as well as the silence of the State Attorney General’s Office, after the alleged maneuvers of Leire Díez to disrupt judicial cases became known. Therefore, they have demanded greater “forcefulness” from their governing bodies, while warning that, in any case, they will remain watchful to adopt the “appropriate measures” at the national and European levels, without specifying which ones.
All judicial and prosecutors’ associations, except two, have spoken out this way after the investigation led by Judge Santiago Pedraz from the National Court into the alleged existence of a plot led by the former PSOE Organization Secretary Santos Cerdán, with former socialist member Leire Díez as his lieutenant, to “delegitimize members of the Judiciary and thereby halt processes affecting that party or the Spanish Government,” according to a joint statement.
The APM and AF ―the majority associations in the judicial and prosecutorial careers, respectively―, the AJFV, FJI, and APIF have focused on journalistic reports indicating that the alleged plot carried out “secret investigations” against Judge Beatriz Biedma, who handled the case against David Sánchez, brother of the Prime Minister, currently on trial at the Provincial Court of Badajoz for influence peddling and malfeasance. These investigations “would include spying on her person, family, and environment, with the aim of harassing and discrediting her,” the signatories have denounced.
The associations, while starting “from the staunch defense of the right to the presumption of innocence of those under investigation in a proceeding that remains partially secret to this day,” observe the published information with “deep concern” over “the possibility that the alleged delegitimization strategies have affected not only a specific colleague but a plurality of members of the judiciary.”
In their opinion, this “goes far beyond” the “frequent attacks” launched in recent years “from politics against members of the Judiciary, without any other basis than disagreement with the content of the rulings issued,” “to the extent that it would point to an orchestrated strategy to undermine judicial independence.”
For this reason, they see the institutional statement unanimously approved this Tuesday by the CGPJ Permanent Commission as “insufficient,” since it merely reiterates “the need to respect the independence of the Judiciary” against “statements by qualified officials of high State institutions questioning the independence, responsibility, and adherence to the law of specific judicial actions.”
The CGPJ has emphasized that such pronouncements “contribute to eroding citizens’ trust in the Rule of Law,” thereby weakening “the foundations of an advanced democratic society.” In this regard, it has recalled that “the defense of constitutional values and principles, judicial independence, and the right to defense are pillars on which the Rule of Law rests.”
The associations have received with “special dismay” what they perceive as the “lack of forcefulness” of the judges’ governing body. “We expected that in this case the CGPJ would have been up to the task in its constitutional role as defender and guarantor of judicial independence,” they have stated.
“Lack of reaction”
Sources from the CGPJ consulted by EL PAÍS indicate that, precisely, the Permanent Commission ―dominated by the conservative sector, which has numerous representatives from the APM― issued this statement intending to prevent the publication of the judicial associations’ communiqué, knowing it had been in preparation for days. In the draft, accessed by this newspaper, the signatories (not yet listed) also expressed their “dismay” at the CGPJ’s “silence,” trusting that it would be “up to the circumstances” and fulfill “its constitutional role as defender and guarantor of judicial independence.”
Sources from the judges’ governing body explain that with this official pronouncement they intended to respond to criticisms made last week by Government members regarding judicial investigations into the former socialist member, but also against former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, whom another National Court judge, José Luis Calama, is investigating as an alleged shadow leader of a network dedicated to selling influence that would have facilitated the rescue of Plus Ultra for 53 million euros. Among those voices, the strongest was that of the Minister of Transport, Óscar Puente, who said that attempts are being made to “topple the Government by undemocratic methods.”
Along the same lines, the signatory associations have lamented “the lack of reaction from the State Attorney General’s Office,” considering that in this way it is ignoring “its legal duty to defend judicial independence.” The judicial investigation reveals that Díez’s alleged schemes primarily targeted anti-corruption prosecutors. Another judge, Arturo Zamarriego, from the Madrid courts, is investigating these alleged moves against prosecutors, and also civil guards, who would have targeted anti-corruption prosecutors Alejandro Luzón, José Grinda, and Ignacio Stampa.
The latter two reported to their respective superiors approaches from the plot, offering bribes in exchange for sensitive information about their bosses and colleagues and to dismiss cases. In the only statement made to date by the Prosecutor’s Office, a year ago the Fiscal Council ―controlled by AF and APIF― unanimously supported Grinda after he requested it, when an audio of one of the meetings led by Díez seeking data to use against the magistrates became known. Sources from the State Attorney General’s Office report that no further official reactions are expected.
As a counterpoint to what they call inaction, the judges’ and prosecutors’ associations have asserted in this joint statement that “the Judiciary acts with full independence, subject only to the rule of law,” rejecting “any attempt to delegitimize its function” because “it constitutes an attack on the Rule of Law and the separation of powers.” “We reiterate our support for the affected individuals and their families,” they added.
Furthermore, they have warned that “they will remain watchful regarding the outcome of the ongoing proceedings and will adopt the measures they deem appropriate at the national and European levels, in the interest not only of the judges and magistrates directly concerned but of all members of the judicial career, whose peace of mind in carrying out their work must not be disturbed and must be preserved as a basic postulate of their independence.”