Vamos a ver si quedan las cosas claras:...

Todo esto será asi. Como es también asi los muertos de Paracuellos.
Pero el caso que se esta substanciando en el Supremo es sencillamente de competencia. Y el Sr. Garzón no era COMPETENTE y asi se lo expresaron las instancias jurídicas pertinentes, por lo que lo que se esta viendo es si prevarico o no. Exclusivamente.
Saludos.
Verdeorilla
verdeorilla.

Piensa, piensa.
Tu problema y el del juez Garzón, sobre lo que dices " si era competente, o prevaricó" Piensa.

Si el juez en este juicio dice que, no prevaricó. Anularía el juico donde se dijo que no era competente.
Vamos a ver si quedan las cosas claras:

1º El juez Garzón se declara competente para investigar a las víctimas del franquismo.

2º Se presenta una denuncia contra él porque no es su competencia.

3º A raiz de esa denuncia el Sr. Garzón se inhibe.

4º Como la denuncia estaba cursada, es lo que se está juzgando.

5º El TS se pronunciará con arreglo a la ley.

Agur.
Respuestas ya existentes para el anterior mensaje:
1ºGarzón se declara competente

2ºSe presenta denuncia que dice, "no es competente"
3ºGarzón se inhibe
4º No se retira la denuncia, es la que se está juzgando
5º Si el Supremo dice que si es competente, si Garzón lo estima oportuno, puede deshinhibierse y volver a declararse competente con el auto del Supremo. Olo puede hacer cualquier jue.
Editorial
Truth on Trial in Spain
Published: February 4, 2012

Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share

Terrible crimes were committed during and after Spain’s 1936-39 civil war that no court has yet examined or judged. No one knows how many people were taken away, tortured and murdered. Now, one of Spain’s top investigating magistrates, Baltasar Garzón, is on trial for daring to open an inquiry into those atrocities.
Related News

Spanish Judge Testifies in His Own Defense (February 1, 2012)
Times Topic: Baltasar Garzon

Related in Opinion

Op-Ed Contributor: A Judge in the Dock (January 26, 2012)

Spain is now a vibrant democracy, but Judge Garzón’s trial, which opened last week, is a disturbing echo of the Franco era’s totalitarian thinking. He faces criminal charges that could suspend him from the bench for 20 years for defying an amnesty enacted in 1977 to smooth the transition to democracy. He rightly counters that under international law, there can be no amnesty for crimes against humanity and that unsolved disappearances — thousands of mass graves are unopened — constitute a continuing crime.

In 2008, Judge Garzón briefly began an official inquiry, ordering the opening of 19 mass graves and symbolically indicting Gen. Francisco Franco and several former officials, none still alive, for the disappearance of more than 100,000 people. An appellate court shut the inquiry down. The next year, two far-right groups brought criminal charges against the judge for defying the amnesty law. The government’s prosecutor argued that no crime had been committed, but the Supreme Court accepted the case.

Separately, Judge Garzón faces criminal charges for rulings in two other politically charged cases. We cannot judge the merits of these. But criminal prosecution of magistrates for their rulings is rare in Spain, and could chill judicial independence.

Judge Garzón became famous for his prosecutions of Basque terrorists, Argentine torturers, Chile’s former dictator, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, and Spanish
New York Times Esto dice sobre el caso
The Sunday Review

politicians. His powerful enemies now see a chance to end his career.

Judge Garzón is undeniably flamboyant and at times overreaches, but prosecuting him for digging into Franco-era crimes is an offense against justice and history. The Spanish Supreme Court never should have accepted this case. Now it must acquit him. ... (ver texto completo)