Justice has decided to confirm the acquittal of Diego Camacho, a retired infantry colonel, who was tried for affirming things such as that the former vice president of the Government, Pablo Iglesias, had collected money “from the Venezuelan drug trafficker”, that he had given “false passports to Hezbollah terrorists” and that the links between the politician and drug trafficking was something “contrasted”. The Court of Madrid understands that there was neither slander nor insults, arguing that they were “mere insinuations”, acknowledging that some of these statements “are, from an objective point of view, false” but reproaching Iglesias that “you cannot have a concept of the right to honor that is very restrictive for itself, and very lax and broad for others”.
The case started in 2022 when Pablo Iglesias sued Diego Camacho, a retired military man and former member of the secret services who collaborates with various media. In this case, the Justice examined various phrases uttered in an article in El Correo Español as well as on the YouTube channel of the so-called “Club de los Viernes”, a ‘think tank’ linked to the Spanish far-right.
In them, the retired military man stated that Iglesias and his collaborators “have collected money from embezzlement and the Venezuelan drug trafficker”, that he “provided false passports to Hezbollah terrorists”, that he had “ties” to international terrorism and money laundering. “, and that his relationship with drug trafficking “is a super-known thing according to the information I have.”
A criminal court in Madrid decided to acquit both him and Kairos Media on the understanding that he had not committed a crime of slander or libel: they did not directly attribute a crime to him, the court argued, and he must also freedom of expression of the former member of Spanish espionage to prevail in a context of social and media tension.
Arguments that are now confirmed point by point by the Madrid Court, endorsing these statements in which the retired soldier clearly stated that Pablo Iglesias had collected money from Venezuelan drug trafficking, something for which there is no evidence. In the first place, he justifies that “they are mere insinuations or generic personal attributions” and that, furthermore, he understands that the military man wanted to say that Iglesias received payments from the Venezuelan state and not from drug trafficking, as he literally said. “Collecting money from drug trafficking is not the same as collecting it from a country that can be accused of favoring these behaviors.”
That the soldier said that the “link” of Iglesias with drug trafficking was “super-known” according to his information of unrevealed origin is also qualified: “The term “link” has many social meanings without necessarily being, exclusively, the imputation of a crime of drug trafficking or related to said illicit activity, but may have a personal, social, family or any kind of “link”, which is alien to criminal law”, says the sentence.
There were no slander because the retired soldier did not directly charge him with a crime, and there were no insults against Pablo Iglesias. And it is here when the Madrid court, unanimously, reasons that these expressions have not had a negative impact on the image of the politician, taking into account the level of “dialectical degradation that permeates part of the current political debate.”
That expression was used by the court to justify the acquittal and is now reiterated by the Provincial Court. He even launches veiled reproaches at Iglesias for his own public statements, although without citing any specific one. “You cannot have a very restrictive concept of the right to honor for yourself, and very lax and broad for others, in such a way that you consider that certain expressions directed against you qualify them as offensive, and when those same expressions are uttered or used by him to third parties he deems plausible or correct.
For the judges, “in the current political and social context –environmental circumstances– criticism of the opponent has been left aside, and with the opposite ideological sign, what is courteous and correct, to give way to a verbal and exacerbated confrontation of with each other, using personal insults. And much more, when an institutional position of some importance is held, such as that of vice president of the government, to which the appellant alludes”. Someone with a government responsibility, say the judges, forces rivals to respect: “Whoever holds it must respect all of his opponents, and especially those who hold other institutional positions of some importance. When this is not done and the political debate focuses on disqualification and fierce confrontation, as the sentence says, it is not possible to rely on holding a position to defend the right to honor.
The succession of political statements, say the judges, reduce the impact of words like those of the military linking Pablo Iglesias to drug trafficking in Venezuela. “This is so, not only because of the circumstantial nature of the event, but also because of the convulsive climate that currently exists in the political debate, in which any type of disqualifications made are annulled or forgotten by the following ones, without leaving any sequel to the honor of the participants in this debate. What’s more, sometimes it is sought and encouraged as a way of reacting and attracting votes”.
The “reliable sources”
The Court of Madrid rejects with these arguments the appeal of Iglesias, which had been partially supported by the Prosecutor’s Office, and which can still be brought before the second chamber of the Supreme Court. It also examines the former leader of Podemos’ allegation that the court used unreliable information as a source to justify that the retired colonel’s words were not a crime, and concludes that information obtained from OkDiario, Digital Journalist and a digital called Mil21 are “solvent sources”. and edited by a company domiciled in Miami.
The court, it says, considers that these sources “are sufficient, for the purposes of assessing the evidence, to exclude criminal responsibility” and that, although some expressions of the military “are, from an objective point of view, false” are not they are “from a subjective and well-founded perspective, precisely because of the large amount of journalistic information that deals with the subject.”
He also reproaches Iglesias for his criticism of some of these media outlets for the closeness that, he affirms, they have with the right-wing ideology, contrary to his own. “The media, whatever their editorial line or ideological tendency, are reliable based on their professional performance, and not because they are of an ideology contrary to their interests. Furthermore, in a democratic society like ours, what is really important is that there be media of different ideological signs in order to avoid single thinking. Pretending otherwise is harmful not only for society but also for the individual in their personal and intellectual development”.
