KATSAV RULING UNDERMINES PUBLIC TRUST IN THE COURTS

(GRAN CANARIA EN SU ENCRUCIJADA -y CXVI -116-)


KATSAV RULING UNDERMINES PUBLIC TRUST IN THE COURTS

(LA RESOLUCIÓN SOBRE KATSAV MINA LA CONFIANZA CIUDADANA EN LOS TRIBUNALES)

(Aclaración: resolución judicial por la que Moshe Katsav queda libre sin entrar en prisión hasta que su apelación ante el Supremo sea juzgada)

La sentencia de siete años de cárcel a Moshe Katsav, ex presidente de Israel, por el tribunal del distrito de Tel Aviv el 22 del mes de marzo pasado por el delito de acoso sexual a una subordinada llevaba implícito su inmediato ingreso en prisión, de acuerdo con la norma penal al uso en Israel, sin menoscabo de su apelación al Tribunal Supremo. La resolución ahora del Alto Tribunal, de la mano del juez Yoram Danziger, de dejar a Katsav en libertad durante la tramitación y resolución sobre la apelación ha creado una sensación de desconcierto en la población israelí. El editorial del diario digital israelí HAARETZ.com del 19 de mayo es un fiel reflejo de cuál es el sentir que reina al respecto en la ciudadanía israelí.

Sin pretender en lo más mínimo postura alguna de linchamiento del ex presidente Katsav, no hay duda, no obstante, que el hito de justicia que marcó el Tribunal del Distrito de Tel Aviv con su sentencia de siete años de prisión al señor Katsav ha quedado en gran medida ensombrecido por la ahora resolución de dejar en libertad a Katsav durante el trámite de la apelación, uso no habitual en Israel, lo que viene a cuestionar la igualdad de todos los ciudadanos ante la ley.

Transcribo íntegramente el editorial en su versión original por su alto sentido del concepto justo de la aplicación de la ley en una nación democrática y sugiero el uso del traductor de este blog en el idioma pertinente, caso que el lector lo precise.

Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 23 de mayo de 2011.
Daniel Garzón Luna

Katsav ruling undermines public trust in the courts(La resolución sobre Katsav mina la confianza ciudadana en los tribunales)

The credibility and authority that the public instill in the courts is undermined when the justice system allows Katsav to roam free, in a decision that shows not all people are equal in the eyes of the law.

(La credibilidad y autoridad que el pueblo deposita en los Tribunales es minado cuando el sistema judicial permite a Katsav deambular libremente en una decisión que demuestra que no todos los ciudadanos son iguales ante los ojos de la ley)

Haaretz Editorial (19-05-2011)

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision to the effect that former President Moshe Katsav will not begin serving his prison sentence, pending a decision on his appeal, is a bad decision, involving problematic reasoning and grave consequences. More than he explains his reasons in his 30-page decision, Supreme Court Justice Yoram Danziger relates the story of the conviction. In a very tortuous style, and based on a precedent that may have nothing to do with the case of the former president, the justice tries to support his decision.

Inter alia, Justice Danziger points out that some of the testimony may require further clarification, and that there are cases in which a person who committed crimes similar to those of Katsav sat behind bars, while in other cases the felon was not sentenced to an active prison term.

This casuistry is surprising, to say the least; in most of the cases when the Supreme Court does not reject an appeal out of hand, it is clear, in any event, there may be another discussion and even a decision to change the sentence (or not ). Moreover, just at the stage of summing up the explanations and formulating the decision, Danziger states that "the chances of appeal in these convictions are probably not great."

But even were the chances of appeal of the serious convictions - for which the former president was sentenced to seven years in prison - are far better than Danziger anticipates, and there is no connection between them and the unfortunate decision to leave Katsav outside prison. Any other criminal convicted of this type of crime is placed in detention until the conclusion of proceedings (in many cases even longer than the nine months allowed by law, by means of a court-initiated extension ), and goes to prison straight after sentencing - whether or not the convicted has submitted an appeal.

The court's decision to delay Katsav's incarceration shows, once again, there is a contradiction here to the principle of equality, and the decision can be viewed as showing preference to people in high places. In his decision Justice Danziger cited the prosecution's contention that delaying imprisonment is liable to harm public confidence in the legal system and to undermine its authority. It's a shame that the justice did not consider this statement seriously enough. Katsav's walking around free undermines the credibility and authority of the courts in the eyes of the public.