The appearance on a television program hosted by Ana Rosa Quintana of the wife of Santiago del Valle, tried for the death of the girl Mari Luz Cortés, has generated the logical scandal and the setting in motion of a series of events whose consequences are yet to be determined: the Court of Instruction issue 43 of Madrid has decreed the imprisonment provisional without bail of the interviewee, Isabel García, for the possible commission of the crimes of omission of the duty to prevent a crime and false testimony; at the same time, proceedings of research have been initiated to clarify the actions of those responsible for the television channel and the program for the way in which Isabel García was taken from Seville to Madrid and subsequently to police stations.

While the last session of the trial was taking place in the Provincial Court of Huelva, the defendant's wife, who days before had testified as a witness in the trial, declared on television that her husband "killed" Mari Luz in an accident. The images, both of the interview broadcast live and of the video of what happened during the breaks for advertising, are so eloquent that they make any comment on them unnecessary. The President of the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE), Elsa González, has pointed out that in journalism "not everything goes" and that there has been an attack on the dignity of the interviewee. For her part, the well-known journalist manager of the program is proud of work and considers that this is the news that every journalist would have wanted to give. Other colleagues do not seem to be so clear in view of the harshness of the numerous criticisms that have appeared in various media.

Situations like this subject show that in today's television market, with a fierce fight for the advertising market and the attraction of audiences, anything goes has been definitively installed: "keep recording", ordered the reporter to the cameras while the interviewee, lying in a public park, begged in tears not to be recorded any more. Self-regulation codes, style books and ethical codes are gathering dust on the shelves and their pages are yellowing at the bottom of a drawer.

In one of the round tables held at the headquarters of the Superior Court of Justice of Navarra, on the occasion of the III conference of Communication and Justice, both journalists and jurists agreed with agreement on the problem represented by the so-called, with a certain generosity, "entertainment programs" when it comes to reporting on judicial processes. The problem lies in how to deal with the excesses that are committed, since the absence of legal limits is taken advantage of by this subject of programs, which have no problem in using the pain, the lack of training and culture, the desire for prominence of some or the desire of others to see justice done, to turn the information on these matters into a television spectacle.

At this point, the adoption of certain legal measures is essential to provide judges with instruments with which they can curb these excesses. Thus, it would be advisable to prohibit the statements and interventions of witnesses and experts in the media while the trial is taking place. It is not a question of setting exorbitant or gratuitous restrictions but, as the European Human Rights agreement itself foresees, of the convenience of subjecting the exercise of freedom of information to certain conditions, restrictions or sanctions to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Such measures must be provided for by law and their application must ultimately be based on criteria of strict necessity and proportionality. 

In England, the judge has the mechanism of contempt of court, whereby the Courts can intervene to prevent or repress behavior tending to interfere in the course of the administration of justice; in France, sanctions are imposed on those who publish images of a detained person handcuffed before being sentenced or the dissemination of opinion polls on the guilt of a person on trial. No one doubts the democratic values and convictions of these countries. They are simply clear that dispensing justice is a mission statement that corresponds exclusively to judges and that the holding of a trial cannot be moved from the conference room hearings to a television set, to a place where none of the procedural guarantees that ensure a fair trial are in place.