On March 24 I wrote a post on the secrecy of communications lawyer / client and was written after another October 14, 2009 on SITEL and secrecy of communications . Maintained in both articles that Judge Mr Garzon had adopted arbitrary decisions that had attacked a basic constitutional right which is the right to defense and secrecy communications lawyer / client relationship. I also wrote several other articles on the media in which Judge held that it must be removed from the judicial career (currently has three cases against him, in the Supreme Court).
Yesterday, the instructor of the charge was brought against Mr. Garzón, by the controversial case Gurtel listeners, has issued a writ of transformation the preliminary in summary procedure, which involves that terminates the investigation of the case.
In this order, the magistrate submits that Mr. Garzón Circumstantial has committed two crimes: One of prevarication and a use of listening and recording devices in violation of constitutional guarantees . Throughout the resolution affects the judge rolled the fundamental right to protection by adopting a resolution so severe as to empty the right of defense at the time that they infringed the fundamental right not to testify. It also maintains that substantially injured one of the basic principles of criminal procedure, taking them back to a procedural status before the rule of law.
Auto reports that the judge suspended the measures applied to intercept communications " categorical terms as all-embracing that render meaningless the right of defense and other fundamental rights of some defendants who are in custody. "These decisions will seriously undermine the relationship of confidentiality between attorney and client so far as to implement distrust as a general guideline.
The order adds that transgression may be circumstantial, as it disregarded the prosecutor's report which reminded the listeners that were to be excluded on communications lawyer / client, also If the judge of the High Court had decided the isolation of three prisoners, their defense has been more effectiveness and that "at least not autoincriminarían or sources would provide evidence against their own legal interest."
the Supreme Judge also refers in his car to the invalidity of eavesdropping ordered by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid and believes that this measure is by no means sufficient as Garzon's decision "amputated" a fundamental right . If we allow such practices, defends the instructor "any remand prisoner or any lawyer would from now on, when talking in a booth (...) the slightest guarantee that their talks were not heard."
the Supreme Judge also refers in his car to the invalidity of eavesdropping ordered by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid and believes that this measure is by no means sufficient as Garzon's decision "amputated" a fundamental right . If we allow such practices, defends the instructor "any remand prisoner or any lawyer would from now on, when talking in a booth (...) the slightest guarantee that their talks were not heard."
Ultimately, this recent Supreme Court Order of the assessments is to ratify that I held in my previous post on Mr. Garzon on arbitrary decisions had been taken and why it should be removed from the judiciary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment