The Supreme Court rejects a complaint from Manos Limpias against politicians from PSOE, ERC and Junts for criticizing the ‘lawfare’

The Supreme Court insists that talking about ‘lawfare’ does not constitute a crime of threats. In a recent document, the Criminal Chamber has decided not to admit a complaint by Manos Limpias against Gabriel Rufián, Jordi Turull and Santos Cerdán in which they accused the three politicians of threatening judges such as Manuel García Castellón, Pablo Llarena or Manuel Marchena by talking about ‘lawfare’ in several public interventions, some of them from the Congress tribune. The judges explain that it may be a “lack of respect” but in no case a crime of threats, as the far-right pseudo-union that is promoting the popular accusation against Begoña Gómez maintains.

Last May, the high court already had the opportunity to rule on a similar complaint filed by Clean Hands against Miriam Nogueras, spokesperson for Junts in Congress. The pro-independence parliamentarian referred to half a dozen judges who had participated in the process to assure that “they should be tried immediately, dismissed”, describing these magistrates as “indecent”.

The Supreme He has already rejected that first complaintexplaining that Nogueras’ statements were protected by the parliamentary immunity of deputies and senators when they speak from the podium. He subsequently had to analyse a second criminal case brought by Manos Limpias against other politicians for similar statements, although not all of them were issued from the Congress of Deputies.

In this case, Miguel Bernad’s far-right pseudo-union accused Gabriel Rufián (ERC), Santos Cerdán (PSOE) and Jordi Turull (Junts) of a crime of threats for making reference to ‘lawfare’ at different points in the negotiations to invest Pedro Sánchez as President of the Government as well as to push through the amnesty. For Manos Limpias, for example, the reference to ‘lawfare’ made by the agreement between PSOE and the judiciary reflects “unequivocally a crime of threats against the judiciary.”

Manos Limpias said the same about the commissions of inquiry planned around this matter. Gabriel Rufián, in the debate on Sánchez’s investiture, also “made clear threats to judges in general and in particular to those involved in the criminal proceedings of the secessionists.” Finally, the far-right organization highlighted some words by Turull on TV3 about the amnesty to add him to the list of alleged authors of the threats.

The Supreme Court understands that none of these statements or references to ‘lawfare’ can be considered a crime of threats. “We are faced with mere generic statements against the judiciary, thinking of a possible action by the same in the future,” says the high court.

The statements of the accused politicians, explains the Criminal Chamber, “can be accused of a lack of respect and consideration towards the Magistrates to whom they refer specifically and towards one of the powers of the State in general, such as the judicial power” but “they are not threatening to cause harm to them or to people close to them.”