The lawyer of the King emeritus compares his immunity with that of Pinochet to stop Corinna’s lawsuit

The attorneys of Juan Carlos I compared the former head of state with the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and with torturers from Saudi Arabia to claim their immunity in the trial that continues in the High Court of London for the lawsuit filed by Corinna Sayn-Wittgenstein for a crime of extreme harassment and illegal surveillance.

OKDIARIO has published this Monday that the former sentimental partner of the King Emeritus She accuses him before the London courts, among other crimes, of using “agents of the Spanish State and mercenaries to intimidate her and her children”, “Influence her ex-husbands, daughter, son and many of her friends by claiming that the plaintiff had stolen from her and was untrustworthy and unfair”, “make defamatory statements to many of her clients and business partners”, “supply to the media for the publication of false information that he was dishonest, had stolen money, had opened false accounts in order to receive commissions and it was a threat to the national security of Spain “ and “participate in an attempt to blackmail the Royal Family” and “illegally intercept and monitor their mobile and Internet accounts and the mobile and Internet accounts of their advisers.”

At the court hearing this Monday, Juan Carlos’s lawyers based their defense on the legal inability of the United Kingdom to judge the King emeritus being protected by his inviolability constitutionto and for being a member of the Spanish Royal Family. The lawyers went back to the Treaty of Utrech of 1713-15 to defend that, since the 18th century, the United Kingdom has respected the immunity of the Spanish monarchs, both in their public and private actions.

The version of the lawyers of the office of Cliffort Chance, one of the most prestigious and expensive in the world, among whom is the Spanish professor and lawyer Bernardo del Rosal, clashes with the position of Corinna’s legal team, of which the former Spanish magistrate and lawyer is part José Antonio Choclán.

According to the defense of the German princess, Juan Carlos lost his immunity in June 2014 when he abdicated and was succeeded to the throne by his son Philip VI, Since then there is only one King in Spain. The former monarch, likewise, in June 2019 withdrew from public life and, in August 2020, he left Spain and took up residence in Abu Dhabi. Since then he has lived, family and financially, apart from Felipe VI, according to the accusation, according to Corinna’s lawyers.

However, in this Monday’s hearing, to defend the criminal inviolability of Juan Carlos I, his lawyers came to put as an example, as a comparable case, the crimes of torture and murder for which the extradition of Pinochet was claimed when he was arrested. in London. Then, the British courts recognized the immunity of the Chilean president, according to the defense, regardless of the nature of the facts pursued.

Claiming immunity

Likewise, the lawyers went to a case for crimes of torture that affected Saudi military, police and prison officials and the Minister of the Interior of the Arab country, whose claim was rejected by the immunity of the State. According to the lawyers of Juan Carlos I, the Saudi citizens were exonerated because they acted as civil servants and no distinction could be made between the claim against the Saudi Kingdom and the individual claim against the defendants.

The defense of Juan Carlos insisted before the Superior Court of London on the immunity of the former monarch because, in the first place, the former head of state has the status of gauged, being subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Spain since his abdication, as approved by the Spanish Courts.

That immunity supports, according to the defense, members close to the Royal Family because “There is an inherent public interest in protecting the dignity of the sovereign and the Royal Family.” According to the lawyers of the King Emeritus, the United Kingdom’s respect for sovereign immunity dates back more than 400 years since it was granted the right to immunity before the British courts and is included in the Spanish Constitution of 1978.

Apart from the technical assessments, the defense of Juan Carlos I insisted that the former monarch rejected the allegations made against him and denied any “alleged irregularity on the part of the Spanish State.”

To cover their backs, the defense of the former monarch maintained before the British Court that Juan Carlos “I would not be in a position to present an adequate defense to the claim because it would require the presentation of evidence from state officials apparently working in sensitive areas of national intelligence, who would be prohibited from testifying in the English Court in accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and international law. “

At a stroke, Juan Carlos I’s lawyers anticipated any investigation into the behavior of the CNI agents, led by their director Félix Sanz Roldán, on the operation Monaco – directed to steal documents from Corinna – because she would be doomed to failure. The same would happen with the surprising trip of the former CNI director to London where he met Corinna and, according to her, threatened her. That grotesque passage starring a four-star Spanish general is already part of the comic history of Spain’s secret services.

For the lawyers of Juan Carlos I, “a head of state has the same civil procedural immunity as the state” and “immunity persists after a person leaves office”, something that causes serious doubts among experts in Constitutional Law.

For the office of Cliffort Chance, Juan Carlos continues to hold the title of King for life in an honorary capacity, being called His Majesty and with honors similar to those established for the heir to the Crown. Therefore, according to the defense, the London court must conclude that Her Majesty is entitled to immunity from jurisdiction and consequently, it has no jurisdiction to follow up with Corinna’s lawsuit.

Inviolability lost after abdication

The plaintiff’s lawyers, on the other hand, maintain that in order to claim the immunity of head of state it is necessary to be one and they give an international example: the general Noriega rHe claimed that condition when he was arrested and requested his immunity as head of state of Panama, but the North American courts rejected his claim because he was not the constitutional head of state.

And the lawyers insist: “Since he abdicated in 2014 and retired from public life in 2019, he has not been head of state and therefore is not sovereign, since Spain only has one sovereign. Therefore, there is no basis for him to claim his immunity. “

At the same time, they point out that the example presented by the defense regarding the immunity of Saudi officials cannot be taken into consideration because it is only contemplated when it affects those who assist the head of state in the performance of his work. Juan Carlos would never fulfill that function because he retired from public life.

The defense of the former sentimental partner of Juan Carlos shows that, although he is part of the family of King Felipe VI and has the title of King Emeritus, he is subject to the Supreme Court in accordance with Spanish law, therefore, he would have lost his inviolability in Spain. So much so that the Spanish High Court Prosecutor investigates him in three proceedings for various crimes.

Corinna’s defense recalls that King Felipe VI, on March 15, 2020, issued a statement reiterating that the Crown should “preserve its prestige and observe comprehensive, honest and transparent conduct”, in reference to the scandals that affected its dad. As of that date, Juan Carlos stopped receiving the budget allocation from the Royal Family.

The lawsuit emphasizes that most of the acts denounced by Corinna belong to the years in which Juan Carlos had ceased to be King, after his abdication. And it points out that the acts committed by Juan Carlos’ personal collaborators in operations against Corinna, such as the example of General Sanz Roldán, are not immune when they occur outside of Spain. They involve the commission of a criminal activity, as happened with France and the caso Rainbow Warrior from Greenpeace.

The hearing at the London High Court will continue on Tuesday and the Court’s decision is expected to be decided in January 2022.

Article Source