At the expense of Constitutional Court (TC). retrial of murder maria del carmen martinezThe widow of Vicente Sala, former head of CAM, was paralyzed by the guarantee agency after accepting the amparo appeal by the sole defendant of the crime, Michael Lopezthe victim’s son-in-law. The Constitutional and Procedural Law experts consulted by this newspaper about the scope of this decision agree that this is not an invasion of the powers of the Court of Cassation or a questioning of the Jury’s Law, but that what the TR will do is obligatory. decide what is heavier: Yes first serious irregularities in the first hearingthe right to a fair trial of the charges has been violated; or if Miguel López’s rights will be violated sit back on the bench, as planned in the past 3 Mayof the acts he was acquitted of.
As this newspaper published, the first hearing for the so-called room safeending with Miguel López’s acquittalUpon the irregularities detected during the processing of the decision, it was annulled by the Court of Cassation and deemed the Court of Cassation accredited. The popular jury passed the initial verdict that found López guilty of murder, but the presiding judge returned the verdict to him because López was not sufficiently motivated. Two days later, the jury gave another verdict of acquittal. The initial conviction was not served on the parties and was destroyed, so prosecutors were never able to verify whether this was sufficient. jury motivation. The Court of Cassation, considering that these insurmountable mistakes violated the right to accuse, decided to ignore the trial and repeat the case. But on the other side of the scales, Miguel López was found not guilty at the first trial and therefore received an acquittal, which was later upheld by the court. Community High Court of Justice.
Professor of Procedural Law, Jose Maria Asenciothinks TC will have to weighting between two rights. To the questions from this newspaper, “The jury made a decision that there was no evidence with these irregularities and the charges were left undefended. Which of these two rights should be valid?” For him, this is a problematic issue because “Many years ago the Supreme Court itself said: acquittals cannot be examined“and a growing trend towards limiting resources. In any event, he pointed out that the assessment by the warrant court would indicate whether what surrounded the act constituted a violation of constitutional significance. , or if it had, it would not have had sufficient weight for repetition of the trial,” he said, but cautioned that in any event, TC’s forms of assessment do not work in the same way as other criminal jurisdictions.
Prevention
In this line, the UA Constitutional Law professor, Jose Asensi, He stressed that the measure taken by the court of guarantee was adopted preemptively, because he understands that a trial before making a decision can amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of the defendants. In this sense, he thinks that the measure of paralysis does not mean to come into conflict with the Court of Cassation, and he does not see any contradiction in the Jury Law, although he assures him that it seems difficult for the Court of Cassation to prove the opposite of what he said. .
Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Alicante, Jose Angel Camison He pointed out that with this measure, the body headed by Cándido Conde Pumpido is “examining whether the amparo claim has special constitutional significance and whether it affects the right to effective judicial protection and the presumption of innocence. It says it will examine the case, and the repetition of the case is paralyzed lest new wounds occur,” Camisón said recently. He assured that, although the judiciary accelerated response times, there was no deadline for the resolution of this appeal.At any rate, he assured that what had been done in the Sala case was a “very exceptional” measure, as it was often spelled out for review after the event.
individual vote
Constitutional Law professor and lawyer Pigeon Helmets He assured this newspaper that the Supreme Court decision was fully justified when it canceled the trial, but “we cannot overlook the fact that there is a case. individual vote of one of the judges of the Supreme Court, who did not support the arguments of the roommates and concluded that the gross mistakes committed did not justify the repetition of the hearing. public prosecutor, for not supporting the Supreme Court. The annulment decision was given after the theses of the private prosecution carried out by the lawyer were accepted by the Supreme Court. Francisco RuizMarco in the name of the victim’s eldest son, Vicente Sala.