Updated: Monday, March 1, 2021 6:00 AM
Published on: 02.03.2021 07:02
Izquierda Unida is appealing the Supreme Court’s decision to archive the complaint it lodged against King Juan Carlos I and challenges the judges who made this decision: judges Manuel Marchena, Juan Ramón Berdugo, Antonio del Moral, Andrés Palomo and Ana Ferrer.
This is stated in a letter, to which laSexta had access, in which the IU is appealing the case against its complaint against the Emeritus for a dozen crimes – including a criminal organization – and warns that it will appeal from the decision not to investigate the former head of state at the European Court of Human Rights.
The formation argues that the second chamber, which issued the file of its complaint, “improperly omitted its obligation to issue an abstention order due to the animosity and hostility manifest and demonstrated in writing by qualifying and by labeling the plaintiffs, in the order of February 15, 2021, popular action professionals “.
IU accuses them that the order of the Supreme Court accuses them of wanting to “turn information into crimes” and to engage in a supposed “selective regularity”. “It can really refer to anything or maybe nothing, and it’s not very well understood, but it seems to be something pretty bad, as is implied; and such a failure to abstain determines our professional obligation, which we regret, as legal directors of the trial and faithful defenders of popular action ”, indicates the letter.
In the opinion of the formation, the magistrates suffered “a loss of appearance of impartiality according to the canons established by the jurisprudence” of the Court of Strasbourg.
<< For this reason, and since this complaint lodged the complaint which is the subject of this procedure on the facts and payments of the Zagatka Foundation to the defendant Mr. Juan Carlos de Borbón, taking into account the new facts that we learned later and that to give full credibility to those denounced in the complaint who were qualified as degrading by the Chamber, such expressions of the Chamber can only be qualified as an objective indication of their loss of appearance of impartiality ”, they add.