The judges assigned to the investigative courts of Valencia, meeting today in a meeting, have issued a statement in which they express their "deep concern" over the "inadmissible harassment to which they are being subjected" the head of Instruction 8, who is leading the case in which the expresident of the Generalitat Valenciana and former minister Eduardo Zaplana is investigated.
The judge has rejected on four occasions the release of Zaplana, who has been suffering from leukemia for years and admitted since December 18 at the La Fe Hospital in Valencia, where he was transferred from the Picassent prison, where he was hospitalized from on May 24.
According to the judges, the decisions adopted by the investigating judge regarding the deprivation of freedom of the ex-president of the Generalitat and former minister have been endorsed by the Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office and also endorsed by the Provincial Court of Valencia.
In a statement sent by the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community (TSJCV), the board regrets that "unprecedented harassment has entailed, in addition to the publication of aspects of the privacy of the magistrate that belong to its strictest privacy , more or less veiled threats, disqualifications and insults of all kinds ".
"All actions are inadmissible, which, in addition to exceeding the limits of reasonable criticism of judicial decisions, undervalue judicial independence and above all, ignore the principle of equality before the law," they add.
The judges make the above considerations "while being aware of the fundamental role of the media and its professionals for the formation of a public opinion duly informed, essential in a democratic society."
"Faced with such facts, which transcend red lines never before overcome, the investigating judges of the city of Valencia only ask, in this and any other procedure, due respect to the jurisdictional function, which implies that we are allowed to perform our I work freely and responsibly, "the note adds.
Without prejudice to this, "it would be advisable to reflect on the need for these issues to be analyzed, debated and resolved with all the elements of judgment in the appropriate forum, which is that of the courts of justice and the legal and constitutionally planned channel ".
"These are measures that affect a person of undoubted public relevance who suffers from a serious illness for which he is receiving all the necessary care in a highly qualified hospital center," the judges added.