The Supreme Court of Justice of Castile and León (TSJCyL) agreed to dismiss and preserve the complaint filed by four nuns from the Convent of Santa Clara de Bellorado against the judge of the Court of First Instance of Brivisca, in Burgos, who allowed their temporary transfer to other convents. The defense of the former Bellorado nuns, on behalf of four of the five elderly nuns – not expelled in the open confrontation with the archbishop – accused the judge of crimes of judicial evasion, forgery of documents, violation of fundamental rights and attempted unlawful detention, in the framework of a civil action for measures to support persons with disabilities. The court noted that the facts described in the complaint do not represent a criminal nature and that the decisions in question are part of the normal exercise of judicial power.
The decision indicates that the judge’s actions occurred while processing several parts of the precautionary measures related to the support determination procedures for people considered to be at risk. The events reported by the nuns date back to August 1, when a judicial commission composed of the Civil Guard, members of the Poor Clares Union and the Bishopric of Burgos attempted to transfer the elderly Bellorado nuns, who had been taken a few days earlier by their companions to the Orduña (Bizcaya) convent, to another convent of the Poor Clares Union.
The complaint confirmed that the judge acted arbitrarily and without guaranteeing the right to defense for those affected. Among the arguments presented, the nuns claimed that they were not adequately informed of the procedure, that they acted with “unjustified haste,” and that the decisions included statements they described as false. They also denounced the attempt to carry out the procedures in the Orduña Monastery in Bizkaya, outside the jurisdiction of the judicial body.
However, TSJCyL rejects all of these arguments. First of all, remember that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a mechanism to challenge judicial decisions with which one of the parties does not agree. The order states that “disagreement with the decisions taken must be directed through identified resources in the relevant jurisdiction, and not through criminal prosecution.”
With regard to the crime of evasion, the Court reiterates the unifying principle: to exist, a judicial ruling must not only be wrong or arguable, but must also be “openly unjust” and adopted with full knowledge of its unfairness. In this case, the Chamber indicates that the measures were issued within the legal framework, with motives and with the aim of protecting the nuns, as they were considered to be in a particularly vulnerable state due to their age and personal circumstances. The court points out that this weak nature is mentioned in the complaint itself.
Regarding the alleged failure to listen, TSJCyL confirms that an attempt was made to notify and listen to those affected, but the judicial commission responsible for carrying out the habeas corpus was unable to reach the monastery due to the refusal of the people who controlled it at the time, and who were associated with the expelled sect. Regarding the attempt to implement the measures in Orduña, the Chamber acknowledges that it was a procedural irregularity, but describes it as “criminally irrelevant”, because it does not imply arbitrariness or unlawful use of judicial power.
The court also rejects the existence of documentary forgery or an attempt at illegal deprivation of liberty. She points out that the precautionary measures he ordered were intended to “protect affected people” and, moreover, were not implemented precisely due to the lack of cooperation of those controlling access to the monastery.
In conclusion, the Chamber declares that the complaint “does not provide any basis that would justify the opening of a criminal case” and agrees to file it. Costs are announced ex officio. The decision may be appealed before the same chamber within a period of three days. In August, TSJCyL actually filed a first complaint because there was no complaint against the alleged perpetrators of the crime, who were also not identified in it.
About The Author
