Talk:Baltasar Garzón

He doesn´t have Argentine Nacionality

He only adquired temporary (1 year) residence after he was forced to stop practising as a Judge in Spain. He never stood there and he´s currently living between Spain and The Hague. Saying he´s resident in Argentine would be exagerated, saying he´s Argentine is completly false, further more, not even a source saying so. Please, someone who delete that, thanks.

217.126.228.25 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, I deleted it myself. 217.126.228.25 (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

He´s not a PSOE militant nor any other political party and never was

Although he has once in PSOE list he did it as independent, never as a militant. He quit after seing president Felipe González (friend of his as other left parties politicians) wasn´t prosecuting corruption enough. That´s well known. Preciselly last Saturday he just repeated it in an interview, where said he was very naive to think he could change something through politics: http://www.lasexta.com/programas/sexta-noche/noticias/garzon-hubo-autentica-persecucion-eliminarme-caso-gurtel_2013072800003.html http://www.europapress.es/tv/noticia-lasexta-noche-entrevista-baltasar-garzon-20130726220916.html

In Spain is totally illegal for a judge to belong to any party, they are free of thought of course, but cannont militate in any party while practising as a judge. Even though he leaved practising as a judge that year when he was in PSOE list, he was never a militant.

He´s even currently being offered to go in the list of Izquierda Unida party, which he says he has rejected because (and only because) he wants to practise politics out of any list and is currently acting in a Citizen Platform.

So please, any English native speaker, delete that. I don't want to edit an English article. Thanks in advance and sorry for any English mistake.

217.126.228.25 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, I deleted it myself. 217.126.228.25 (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Old Stuff

We should separate Bibliography from Publications, since they are currently intermixed. --euyyn 23:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality? This reads like a denunciation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.88.59 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is clearly not neutral!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.42.244.42 (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Cases

The entire section on Spanish cases is not referenced. Some of it also does not appear to meet inclusion criteria (such as investigating Jesus Gil, but no mention of an outcome). I will remove the entire section if no one backs up the section with verifiable references.--MartinezMD (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Plans to sue the U.S. President

Hi, I've removed this sentence:

“ In March 2007 he published in the Spanish newspaper El País an account of his plans to sue US president George W. Bush. ”

since the article by Baltasar Garzón (here) does not seem to support such an statement. Regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He is not judge in the Audiencia Nacional

As one can see in the Spanish Wikipedia, Mr Garzón is not a judge in the National Court. He is an examining magistrate (similar to the American district attorney, since they investigate but not "judge") in the Juzgado Central de Instrucción, that investigates the cases that will be later tried by the Audiencia Nacional, or by the Juzgado Central de lo Penal (Central Criminal Court). That's why I changed the article. Since the English is not my mother tongue, can anyone make sure that the information is correctly wrote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monesvol (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What? Attorney??? Spanish wiki does says so, but apart from that, everybody knows he IS actually a Judge of the National Court where he can´t practise for 10 years after his sentence before Superior Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiencia_Nacional_of_Spain He has taken his case before The Hague Court where he´s currently a adviser, as he cannot practise. http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/250511-judge-garzon-exile-hague 217.126.228.25 (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"imprisoned for terrorism"? NO!

Some sites are claiming that Garzon was "imprisoned for terrorism in Spain" -- and that he studied law in prison.

The article currently has practically zero of the ordinary biographical details in it?

1. Did Garzon serve time? For terrorism? Or anything else?
2. If so, did he study law in prison?
3. Personally, I think this is worth mentioning, if only to clarify the record, even if his stay in prison was during Franco's regime.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! According to the Spanish version "After finishing high school in the Institute of Baeza in 1974, he graduated in law from the University of Seville in 1979. Before finishing his studies, he held various jobs as a construction worker, waiter, and helped his father at a gas station. He passed examination as a judge in 1981. His first assignment was Valverde del Camino (Huelva)." Franco died in 1975, and the repression ended some time before "el Caudillo" finally met his maker, at age 83. At that time Garzón had reached at the ripe old age of 20! Timpo (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That´s just simply crazy!!!! 217.126.228.25 (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo

In my opinion the current photograph use in this article is highly inappropriate. I want to sugest that this one will be used instead . http://elocho.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/baltasar-garzon-1888gh.jpg I don't know how to change it myself. Thank. --83.37.231.161 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason?--Technopat (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity committed by Franco’s government

In the above section it is not clear from the text what is the relevance of the Vassili Kononov v. Latvia case to Garzón's criminal case. Could someone more knowledgeable improve that section? Thank you in advance. 188.80.224.160 (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Charges are incorrect

This version incorrectly claims that the charges that lead to his expulsion as a judge were wiretapping. That was the actions, not the charges. The charges were "Perverting the course of justice" and "breaking the right of defense by damaging the attorney client privilege". It is better explained in the Spanish Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quevedin (talk • contribs) 07:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The charges are right. But it´s not true the thing about terrorism. The article says: "Under Spanish law, such wiretaps are only expressly permitted for terrorism cases and the legality of their use in other cases is more vague."

That wiretaps are still taken as a valid proof in the current still going case "Gürtel", they are not illegal at all. He was charged by the "interpretation of a law" which is totally amazing. Himself said last saturday that the Supreme Court dicted a law in the same sentence, so he only broke a law that was made ad hoc in the sentence itself and abolished later. http://www.lasexta.com/programas/sexta-noche/noticias/garzon-hubo-autentica-persecucion-eliminarme-caso-gurtel_2013072800003.html

There´s no law in Spain regulating wiretapping in detail: http://www.cadenaser.com/espana/articulo/garzon-recurre-tedh-haber-sido-condenado-causas-ajenas-leyes/csrcsrpor/20130526csrcsrnac_6/Tes

This is the actual sentence: http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2012/02/09/sentencia_garzon_gurtel.pdf Where says: "delito continuado de prevaricación judicial y delito cometido por funcionario público de uso de artificios de escucha y grabación, con violación de las garantías constitucionales del art. 536, párrafo 1º"

This means he was guilty of a crime of perversion of justice while wiretapping violating the constitutional guarantees according to the article 536-1. This article doesn´t add any thing at all: https://wikipenal.wikispaces.com/Art%C3%ADculo+536 It only says that a judge or public person cannot wiretappe violating the constitutional guarantees. The sentence is not further argumented, that´s one of the things Garzón is using as an argument in The Hague.

This sentence is utterly incorrect. "Under Spanish law, such wiretaps are only expressly permitted for terrorism cases and the legality of their use in other cases is more vague."

The real thing would be "crime of perversion of justice while wiretapping violating the constitutional guarantees" This case is still to be solved, but due to the fact that the wiretapping is being considered illegal from Garzón but still legal to be used as a proof in the ongoing original case. This whole thing should be reflected in the article.

There´s another important issue that should be added and that is related to Garzón´s supposed relation with PSOE party. Recently, and in the context of all this supposed Popular Party corruption coming out, is been known in Spain that the current president of the Superior Court Judge Francisco Pérez de los Cobos, one of the Suprem Court judges who judged Garzón, is militant in that party, which is a serious infraction (being militant while practising as judge) according to Garzón himself and still to determine if illegal: http://www.lasexta.com/noticias/nacional/garzon-considera-mititancia-perez-cobos-como-grave-infraccion_2013072600127.html Baltasar Garzón is using now this as an extra argument in his defense before The Hague.

217.126.228.25 (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)