The Provincial Court of Barcelona has endorsed the publication of the book Hate (Anagrama), by writer Luisgé Martín, according to the car to which the country has had access. The work has the testimony of José Breton, the murderer sentenced to 40 years in jail for killing his children, Ruth and José, six and two years old. He also speaks of the life of Ruth Ortiz, the mother of the children, who had requested the paralysis of the publication for illegitimate interference of the right to honor, intimacy and the image of the deceased minors.
In a car that responds to the appeal presented on March 25 by the Minors Prosecutor of Barcelona, three magistrates of the Provincial Court of Barcelona conclude that the publication of the book as a precautionary measure cannot be suspended, as the Public Ministry had requested. The magistrates explain that the request “does not adhere” to the Criminal Procedure Law, because it is not formulated “with clarity and precision” nor complies with the requirements required for its adoption, which are the “instrumental nature of the measure and its adaptation to the case as a less burdensome solution.” The documents contributed – Records and press links with extracts of the content of the work, which at the moment has not published – are not adequate, the audience considers.
The Provincial Court of Barcelona thus responds to a letter from the Minors Prosecutor’s Office of Barcelona, which appealed the order of the Court of First Instance number 39 of Barcelona, which had rejected in a precautionary way the publication of the book. This Court considered that “the documents provided (in the mother’s claim and subsequently in the request of the Prosecutor’s Office) to which reference has been made are insufficient to be able to assess” (the case), pointing out that it exclusively collected links to published information. The magistrate did not pronounce on whether the content of the book violates the law, but simply rejects the petition, claiming the fundamental right to freedom of expression, not having elements to evaluate it.
The magistrates of the audience also delve into the documents provided and in the request of the Prosecutor’s Office in their 18 -page car, dated April 7 and made public this Wednesday. He reproaches the Public Ministry for his “contradictory” allegation. On the one hand, the Prosecutor’s Office notes that with the extracts published in the press about the book there is “more than enough documentation” to affirm that there is a “serious and imminent risk” of injury to the rights to honor and the image of the two children killed by their father, José Breton. And yet, the hearing says, those same documents have not been sufficient to the Public Ministry to submit a lawsuit based on the interference of the right to honor, to personal and family intimacy and the image itself “Inclusion, where appropriate, of precautionary measures that are made to the demand,” says the audience.
The Prosecutor’s Office warned in a letter to the Anagrama publishing house that he had breached the legal obligation to previously send the book so that they could evaluate whether the content threatened against the rights of children. Therefore, the hearing considers that the precautionary measure that the Prosecutor’s Office is not aimed at the requirement of the Editorial El Book, since Anagrama could “have been assured” with the letter sent by the Prosecutor’s Office. And, adds the audience, to request the book or the precautionary measure of its suspension, it must have been done through a lawsuit for interference in the rights of children that the Prosecutor’s Office has not filed.
Anagram editorial announced on March 27 that it suspended “indefinitely” the distribution of the work. In a statement made public in networks, the company indicated that “voluntarily, it remains in its decision to respect the request of the precautionary measures requested by the Prosecutor’s Office to paralyze the distribution of the work.” To questions from this newspaper, for the moment, the publisher has avoided ruling. Nor has he pointed out for now the legal representation of Ruth Ortiz.
Freedom of expression against literary creation
In the car, the Provincial Court of Barcelona also stops in the differentiation between freedom of expression and literary and artistic creation “as an autonomous law.” Although they are different rights, both included in article 20 of the Constitution, the Court indicates that the literary creation works based on real events “present a special problem” and underlines that there is “a dialectical tension” in this type of books to elucidate whether one or another right is more relevant. Therefore, he adds, “must proceed with special caution” to “not run the risk of incurring prior censorship.”