No Terrorist Group Can Destroy the Pillars of a Democratic Society

Judge Javier Gomez Bermudez, President of the Criminal Courtroom of Audiencia Nacional

Mr. Bermudez, thank you for receiving us, I know you start a new big trial tomorrow and your time is limited. We last met in 2005, when the March 11 bombings trial was just beginning. Please, tell us a bit more.
It is my great pleasure to receive you here and to see you again. The trial ended with court decision and now all defendants are in jail. It was a quite serious, quite hard case. This was a big trauma to Spain, to all citizens.

There were 29 defendants in the trial and 8 of them committed suicide in Leganes (a Spanish town), another three made a suicide bombing by a Yak plane. The trial itself went on for four months and a half and this was a record time, they usually last for a year, a year and a half. But we drew a very strict timetable, we were in session every day, in the morning and in the afternoon. We did work at high speed. The Supreme Court of Spain confirmed the court decision for all defendants involved in the bombings, and also for those who had assisted the perpetrators. The sentence is for 30 thousand years but, of course, according to the Spanish legislation they can serve 40 at the most. It should be noted that 192 people had died and hundreds were injured, this is a huge amount of victims, more than 2000. Besides, in Spain with such court decisions, related to terrorism and when the defendant is bankrupt and cannot pay the sums adjudged, then the state pays the sums. There is a Solidarity Law, especially in crimes with excessive cruelty and motives, and if the felon cannot pay to the victim the relevant compensation, the state takes this obligation upon itself, so the victim would be always defended.

I could talk about this case for hours. 87 lawyers were engaged in it, more than 200 thousand pages. Apart from the many legal and social complexities this trial had another element, too, all the time it was broadcast live in Belgium, France, Italy and Morocco. In these states there was evidence and witnesses, who by video conference gave testimony. This trial was made possible in this form thanks to the state-of-the-art equipment we use. There was running simultaneous translation for the defendants because they claimed they did not understand Spanish very well. Then the court asked the state and the state agreed and legalized it – for us to use simultaneous translation during the trial.

There were observers from 20 countries: from Italy, from the Arab countries and from Europe, US delegations – from FBI and the embassy. Even from the Association of Human Rights, from international organizations. They were all interested in the progress and in the outcome of the trial. Lest it should sound like a “bouquet of roses”, I know that the work we did was actually much more appreciated outside Spain. But it also seems to me fair, because if you are doing your job this shouldn’t be considered some special merit. But it is also fair if you are doing something well to be noticed. Otherwise it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth and perhaps the best human lesson you learn is that fairness in justice is not always perfect. 

Why do I have the feeling I sense a certain weariness or something is left unsaid?
The feelings are many. On the one hand, the weariness and it tells you if you have done your job well and if it has ended well. There was another feeling, too, which is human rather than professional, and you think, maybe I should have done better. The impression is very subjective, the public will never tell you, “What you have done you have done well,” because most people think we, judges, are not led by their but by other interest, while we are endevouring to do the best that should be done in order to administer justice.

Terrorism seems to be on the upsurge across the world, it is becoming better organized and more brutal. What is the cure?
We have no magic formulae. We need to tell the citizens the truth. From the viewpoint of a professional in the field of law, not a politician, from my experience – terrorism will always exist, we shall have more or less terrorist attacks, we’ll control it as much as we can, but it is crime, one of many, that we cannot eradicate totally, perhaps for a long time or a short time, but somehow we need to coexist with this crime, because no terrorist group can destroy the pillars of any democratic society. Terrorists attack or want to attack the state in order to achieve something, however, the only real threat, what they really destroy, is the normal life of the citizen. It must be known that terrorism exists, it is controlled and we should leave some minimal margins, but we must live with our rights, with out liberties, just as we have lived before, regardless of what they do. I don’t think there should be any special laws, exclusively for terrorism, because thus the civil liberties and rights are restricted. And this was understood by all politicians, by the whole government.

In Bulgaria we have a problem with the morbidity among defendants, sometimes lawyers too. They get sick very often, precisely on the date of their trials. How are they doing in Spain?
I understand your question. This exists in other courts but this court is specialized and we have investigated such cases quite a lot – and we never allow such deceits. Of course, we trust people and it is possible someone has really got sick. But should the hearing have to be cancelled for this reason then we appoint a new date, possibly very inconvenient, Friday afternoon, for example. But by no means does the case go at the end of the queue, we simply schedule it for the nearest possible date, in the worst interims in the timetable. Another thing we do when someone says he is sick, we send our doctor to establish the fact and if the defendant is not at home he goes straight to jail. The index of sickness being the cause of retarding trials is very low. We can say, below 5% are the cases where proceedings are stayed for this reason. In most cases lawyers cooperate and avoid presenting such ostensible reasons. Usually it is the witnesses who do not like coming to court to testify, this is common in the entire Western world, therefore special protection is envisaged. A witness may testify not in public but in private, i.e. we guarantee their security in any case.
The key secret is to work hard, work, work, work and to avoid any such discrepancies.

How do you deal with the problem of corruption in the judiciary here, in Audiencia Nacional?
We have no such problem. In the Criminal Courtroom are employed 18 magistrates and this is good, we mustn’t be more. The small number is one of the reasons, because every one knows the work of the others. We did have one instance 32 years ago, but it was not about money.  A judge in the Supreme Court asked a judge in Audiencia Nacional to release on bail a detainee, assuring him that the latter would not go in hiding because he was innocent. After his release the defendant disappeared and it turned out he was one of the bosses of the Italian mafia. This incident cost both magistrates their career. At once.
There is yet another reason and I am not currying favour with you – it is the constant control on the part of the media. Journalists from all media attend each case we try, we literally work in a glass house. And this is very important for the prevention of any corruption.

What is the efficiency of the Spanish judiciary due to?
If you allow me, I can say that Audiencia Nacional is the court that works efficiently, but this may be due to the fact that it is very strictly specialized and compared to the other courts of the country it has much better resources. I am not talking of the judges only. The crimes we try are so important to the public that we have the best policemen, the best forensic doctors, the best interpreters, the best information. Naturally, we still have to do a lot of things. We need to be even more efficient. Maybe starting September, if things are going at this pace, paper will disappear from here. Now we are working by a programme – e.g. we have the case for tomorrow on a CD ROM and the computers you see here we’ll use them tomorrow during the hearing, i.e. we need to part with the instruments of the past. Although, perhaps you notice I never part with my pen. But I only use it for signature.

You are on the list of ETA targets. How does it feel to be under constant close guard, everywhere, even at home?
I’ve never said such thing. Nobody says so. But you do not have to be very smart to guess that you are a target, that you may be a preferred victim, but so are the president of this court and many other judges. To a various extent, but those dealing with terrorists top the list. There are other threats, too, not very evident, they are related to narcotrafficking, there are quite a few such big economic criminals, but this is part of our job as a whole. The Prime Minister or the Head of State are at a much greater risk, we are constantly under the fire of terrorism. Spain has been living with this threat for more than a century and this is always so, whether you are Minister of the Interior, of Justice, etc.

I am not a coward. Yes, I cannot say I am a dare-devil, I take precautions, but it does not mean I have to live with this fear. I am busy fighting for the extermination of terrorism, I am not engaged in saving myself from terrorism. In Spanish there is a play upon words – I am occupied but not worried.