The fact that the Supreme Court moved to convict the prosecutor became Throwing weapons at the judges Who prosecuted him, suggesting to the government and sectors associated with him that it was exceptional and … Exceptional – said “procedural anomaly” – when there are many other cases of legal or informational relevance (or both) in which the Supreme Court has made this decision specifically to ensure that the parties The convict discovers this himself from the court. What’s more, when ABC went ahead, changing the speaker (initially it was Susanna Polo who was in charge of writing the sentence) would highlight that the sentence that contradicted the sentence inside the room would be translated into a sentence that would not be passed unanimously, but would have individual votes.
It was one of those cases Package issueThe ruling was notified on the same day the oral session was held, after the chamber’s deliberation. It was June 21, 2019 and the court’s decision was an important step in the conceptual definition of crimes against sexual freedom and compensation: it increased the sentence of the five members of “La Manada” to 15 years by concluding that it was multiple rape and not sexual assault because the convicts had used a “genuine intimidation scenario” to sexually assault the victim in the portal during Sanfermin 2016 without him. Adopt a “submissive stance.” The ruling was announced two weeks later, on July 5.
On 14 September 2022, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court notified ERE case ruling, Which received a special vote for the two judges, Anna Ferrer and Susana Polo. His ruling was also submitted nearly two months earlier, on July 26, “in response to the public importance of the case.”
The same thing happened with Assunta case. On 11 October 2016, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court agreed to dismiss the appeals of Alfonso Pastera and Rosario Porto against the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Galicia that confirmed the ruling of the Regional Court of La Coruna that sentenced them to 18 years in prison for the murder of their daughter Assunta. The ruling will be notified a month later, on November 22.
Another example of advance ruling, in this case by the Third Chamber (administrative judiciary), is the ruling of the court Exhumation of Franco’s remains. On September 14, 2019, judges unanimously agreed to allow the exhumation of the Valley of the Fallen dictator by rejecting an appeal filed by his family against the government’s decision. The ruling was announced after an hour and a half of deliberation, so the arguments put forward by TS to overturn the appeal were not known until a week later.
In none of these cases was any suspicion or accusation made by this government or the relevant media against what happened Completely normal practice In important decisions from a legal or media standpoint, given the public importance of the issue. The only thing that distinguishes those other occasions from this one is the campaign to delegitimize justice, which is taking place even more blatantly since the executive’s recognition of “lawfare” in the charter of Sánchez’s inauguration and the questioning of judicial decisions affecting the entourage of the president, who once again declared the prosecutor’s innocence as soon as García Ortiz was convicted.
And in the same vein, exactly yesterday Minister Pilar Alegría He stressed the “anomaly” which, in his opinion, means that the Supreme Court presented the Attorney General’s decision without presenting “any kind of arguments.” “For me, this whole case started with a completely anomalous situation and it seems to me that the verdict is the same,” he said, in line with criticism of the court this weekend by his colleagues Oscar Lopez and Oscar Puente.
.