The head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 of the National Court, Manuel García Castellónhas requested protection from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) following the statements made by the Secretary of State for Justice, Tonxu Rodríguezwhere he suggested that the instructor could have prevaricated by accusing the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont and the leader of ERC Marta Rovira in the case of Democratic Tsunami during the negotiations for the investiture of Pedro Sánchez.
In the letter sent by the instructor to the governing body of the judges, to which he has had access THE WORLDGarcía Castellón explains that he feels a “disturbance” in his independence with the statements of the number two of the minister Pillar Wolf.
The Secretary of State for Justice said in an interview last Wednesday, on the radio station Radio Popular-People’s Radio, the following: «I have no idea if he has a reason or not, but what a coincidence it has to be on this day, hey. Look, it could have been a year and a half before or a year and a half after, well no. It has to be right in the middle of the negotiations. If that is not influencing, may God come and see…
García Castellón states that he suffers “a disturbance” in his independence “to the extent that, who affirms the above, he is the head of the Secretariat of State for Justice, the body to which it corresponds, among other functions, those of support and cooperation with the Administration of Justice or the promotion of Human Rights within the scope of the Ministry’s powers.
Furthermore, the judge of the National Court emphasizes that it is “a ministerial body that, due to its intimate connection with the Judiciary and its Government, has the capacity to influence the judges and magistrates that make up the Career, and whose manifestations, pointing out and by qualifying the actions of one of its members, they place him in a particularly disturbing position. The judge adds that Tontxu Rodríguez’s statements “could imply the clear imputation of the commission of a criminal act, judicial prevarication, by attributing to this instructor the dictation of a resolution with the sole desire to influence, an extreme completely foreign to the reality of the case.” criminal procedure in which the decision is framed.