Alleged violations of fair trial rights in the Spanish ‘Gürtel’ high-profile political corruption case

Facts

The author, F.C.S., a Spanish national, is a business owner in the media sector. He was accused of leading a corruption scheme known as the Gürtel case, one of Spain’s largest political corruption scandals. His conviction was based in part on voice recordings made between 2006 and 2007 without consent. During the investigation, the judge authorised the surveillance of conversations between the detained defendants and their lawyers for over 70 days, during which they discussed their legal strategy. The judge responsible for this surveillance was later prosecuted and convicted for an offence against the administration of justice. However, the High Court of Valencia ruled that the recordings had been removed from public archives and thus did not constitute a violation of the author’s rights. On 8 February 2017, amidst media and political pressure, the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Valencia convicted the author for criminal conspiracy, influencepeddling, embezzlement of public funds, and active bribery, sentencing him to several years in prison and substantial fines. He is currently serving his sentence in prison.

The author appealed to the Supreme Court but his appeal was dismissed. His subsequent amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible. He then submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which was also dismissed for failing to meet the admissibility criteria under articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the present communication, the author alleges violations of article 14 (1), (2), (3) (c) and (g), and (5) of the Covenant, claiming that his trial was unfair, politically influenced, and marred by undue delays.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Optional Protocol. It noted that the ECtHR had already examined the case in a manner that constituted some degree of consideration of the merits, rather than a mere admissibility review. Since the ECtHR found the author’s claims to be manifestly ill-founded, the Committee held that, under its existing jurisprudence, this determination precluded further review under article 5 (2) (a).

Regarding the claim under article  14 (5), the Committee found that the Supreme Court had thoroughly reviewed the author’s 14 grounds of appeal, including the fairness of proceedings, the legality of evidence, and sentencing issues. Further, they had done so by excluding certain evidence that prejudiced the author’s right of defence, and considering other evidence. The Committee accordingly concluded that the author had not sufficiently substantiated his claims and declared them inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.