No honest job is easy
It has been necessary to reach the Provincial Court of Madrid and employ about seven judges and several prosecutors – some with inexplicable positions -, unmask a minister, magistrate in special services, and drag the progressive Government of Spain to reach the obvious conclusion from the principle: breaking doors with a battering ram to stop administrative offenses is a crime and refusing to flank the passage of the Police to your home without a court order is to defend your rights.
Anyone with a minimum democratic sensitivity knew it from the first moment but, in this world in which they try to make us commune with millstones, puppeteers can be dangerous jihadists and tourist flats cease to be dwellings, opening the way for police officers Insidious people unlock the doors of any hotel room, rented apartment or caravan when they please and without a court order. I remind you that the boast of ” polisprudence ” – it is said of the jurisprudence created by the police inventiveness – went through establishing an assertion that repels any logical mind: if I, astonish, tell you to open your house to me and you refuse , you are disobeying the authority, ergo you are committing a flagrant crime that allows me to enter by the brave. The polisprudence of the policemen, who will be charged for this action since a deduction of testimony has been ordered, had just finished with a stroke of the pen with the fundamental right contained in article 18.2 of the Constitution to become impossible. All our addresses were within their reach, without a court order, since it is enough to order open to produce the disobedience that makes you incur the flagrant crime that allows them to enter. Goodbye, judges. Hello, police state.
This shameful excuse, this unacceptable democratic stupidity, did not remain only in an action in which “there has been an excess in the exercise of authority by the agents with infringement of the right to the inviolability of the home,” as he says. Section 23 of the Madrid Court, but was expressly endorsed by a Minister of the Interior, a judge, who specifically denied that fundamental rights had been violated. Marlaska and his respect for fundamental rights. Marlaska and its legal depth. Marlaska, the judge for whom Spain has received the most convictions for failing to investigate torture in Strasbourg. Not content with his legal feat, he dragged the entire Council of Ministers and forced the most progressive government spokesperson in history to tell us that that burst door “was not a residence but a tourist apartment.” You have to hit them and I hit them. As you will understand, if I am capable of detecting the acrid smell of the violation of rights and of consulting with experts in three, two, one … that these people who embody such high magistrates throw themselves like fools to embrace the shameful police interpretation is inconceivable. Marlaska, that man who has made this Executive shine so much. I would ask that they put it on the fall adjustment book but it would be even worse if it went back to a court of law. I don’t want to imagine it.
But let’s continue, because in this matter there is wax for many. We have the judge on duty at Plaza de Castilla, Antonia de Torres, to whom the request for habeas corpus of one of the detainees. It is a right to which the person deprived of liberty can resort if they believe that they are illegally, as they were de facto. The car for which a habeas corpus Manual produces a blush that is difficult to hide. A judge who forgets that the only constitutionally legitimate reasons for not admitting it reside in the absence of the assumption of a deprivation of liberty without judicial intervention or the formal requirements of article 4 of the Habeas Corpus Law are not complied with. Neither of the two circumstances occurred in this petition, but she sent it to him with a shameful “The deprivation of liberty is reasonable to the attitude adopted by Isabel.” Those who saw the video on social media already know that the applicant’s attitude basically consisted of telling the police that she knew her rights. Now the Provincial Court makes her red because she did not protect who she was supposed to protect.
Another slap on the wrist deserves the judge of Plaza de Castilla to whom the police report came charging the residents of the apartment with the crimes of disobedience and resistance to the authority that now forces him to dismiss the Hearing. Judge Marcelino Sexmero has enough experience to know perfectly what the higher instance now reminds him of, that and that complaints can be filed in one go when they are crazy.
So here we have again the problem of police officers without training and sensitivity in human rights and even basic legal ignorance, who consider it appropriate to first try to open the latch, then remove the cylinder from the lock, and finally, to impose fines. use a hand ram that destroys a door and part of a wall of a floor, to end up committing a crime them.
So here we have again the investigating judges who instead of judges consider themselves the chiefs of the police or their supporters and who get upset when it comes to establishing reforms that provide us with a true judge of guarantees, now that so many seem having forgotten that this is one of their fundamental roles.
So there we have the antidemocratic drift that makes part of society not understand that putting order cannot imply taking all the most basic rights – and what is more basic than the inviolability of our intimate space! – and that the Police do not only it is not always right but it is necessary to maintain a permanent control of legality.
So we also shine a minister-judge who shows us not only his technical-legal deficiencies but his lack of any sensitivity to what he should have devoted his life to: the defense and respect of constitutional rights.
So it goes.
We were lucky, understand the sarcasm, and this time the run over were some foreign citizens but in a very good position and a Spanish daughter of a property registrar. I say this because these things must be happening every day to hundreds of foreigners and poor Spaniards and neither we find out nor of course any judge will give them a habeas corpus either.
We have been lucky, and this be said with all seriousness, because in the progressive and constant deterioration of the exercise of the judicial function there are still professionals who put things in their place on time – such as Rosario Esteban, José Sierra and Jesús Bergés -, although their number decreases more and more. And lawyers who are willing to fight, like Ospina, who with the filing of the complaint against the police prevented the residents from having to declare as accused.
I applaud some and abhor others and I write it because only with transparency will we discover the true scope of the disaster of our Justice.