The criminal lawyer Pau MolinsMolins, who defended the Infanta Cristina in the trial of the Noos case, has stated that she "was unfairly seated in the dock" and "no one has apologised" after her acquittal. Molins made this statement in the second edition of the Observatory The 'TV news' penaltyorganised today at the Círculo Ecuestre in Barcelona by the consultancy firm Proa Comunicación, the first in Spain to create a department aimed at fighting parallel trials in public opinion.
At the event, inaugurated by Enrique Lacalle, vice-president of the Círculo Ecuestre, and presented by Lucía Casanueva, Managing Partner of PROA, Juan Carlos Campo, magistrate of the Criminal Chamber of the Audiencia Nacional and former Minister of Justice; Neus Pujal, chief prosecutor of Sabadell, and Ángela Martialay, head of the Courts of the newspaper El Mundo, also took part..
Molins focused his speech on several real cases in which, after years of legal proceedings and even imprisonment of the accused, they have been acquitted and have become what he called "guilty without defence". With regard to the 'Noos case', which put the Infanta Cristina in the dock, he pointed out forcefully that "this woman was condemned, even the Monarchy itself must have found it convenient". He added that this came about "due to pressure from the people and from certain political parties". He also expressed his astonishment at the fact that "the media that judged her continue to say that she is guilty". And she considered that parallel trials "end up becoming the only valid trial".
The culprits of these parallel trials are, according to the lawyer, "whoever leaks the information (judge, prosecutor or judicial police)", "the tremendous competition between the media", "undue leaks" and "the inaccuracy of the journalistic information published". Something for which, in his opinion, there is "no" solution.
For his part, the magistrate and former minister Juan Carlos Campo, the first to speak, defined parallel trials as those in which there is talk "of a 'subjudice' matter, in which there is talk with the intention of demonstrating guilt or innocence and which is capable of perverting, even, the minds of those who are going to judge". At the same time, he pointed out that they occur "when the right to information, the rules of criminal law and the desire of a citizenry eager for an opinion are mixed in a cocktail shaker".
In this sense, he stated that one of the problems is that information, "which should be truthful", "is truffled with opinions". Another is that secrecy is often not maintained in criminal proceedings, which undermines dignity and the presumption of innocence, and a third - shared by all the speakers - is that justice "is very slow and we all live in an era of haste".
In short, Campo said that parallel trials are "a problem of coexistence". for which solutions must be sought that allow for what he called "conllevanza". At the same time, he warned that "the democratic health of a country is determined by how it deals with these problems".
As a solution to put an end to its consequences, he proposed the use of several tools: codes of ethics that allow for the separation of opinion and information, faster justice and the articulation of mechanisms to inform from judicial bodies, "such as the Dutch model of the communicating judge", "because knowledge is a source of peace of mind".
Prosecutor Neus Pujal also declared herself in favour of transparency and official channels for judges and prosecutors to be able to inform - "only the information that is necessary" - in order to alleviate the negative effects of parallel trials, declaring herself envious of the way in which "the presumption of innocence is so respected" in which information is provided by prosecutors' offices in other European countries. However, she said that the problem "is not the media, but the networks".
In particular, she has been very critical of the fact that in many cases, investigations are reported in the media before the process has even started. and there are those under investigation who find out through them that they are being investigated.
While being aware that it is difficult to put an end to leaks, he stressed that "the content of the proceedings must never be revealed" and called for extreme care and avoidance of lurid details in child abuse cases.
The journalist Ángela Martialay has put the spotlight on the social polarisation as a cause of parallel trials. "Political leaders have judicialised everything, everything is taken to criminal law", he commented. And, like the prosecutor Pujal, he highlighted the influence of social networks, "nobody controls them, with anonymous profiles, ministers, presidents of autonomous communities... give their opinions on criminal proceedings in progress". He also emphasised that "the media help to ensure that there is free and public opinion in society and we exercise the function of monitoring power, we are the eyes and voice of citizens".
His solution to fight against parallel trials -also pointed out by other speakers-: transparency, as "official channels of information help to reduce media noise". "Have a good communication strategy so that your version reaches society", he advised the defendants.