In the judicial media, the decision of Judge trainer José Castro to call Infanta Cristina to testify in the framework of a criminal procedure followed against, among others, her husband, has not caused the slightest surprise. This interrogation, in our criminal procedure , can only be carried out as a defendant, which implies a series of guarantees in the form of rights. Thus, she will have the right not to testify, not to confess guilt and not to answer any of the questions put to her. And all this, having to be assisted during his statement by a lawyer, either of his choice or from official document.

Hundreds of people in Spain go through the ordeal of making a statement as a defendant -no one likes it- every day. And giving a statement as a defendant means nothing more than that the Judge considers that there are indications (proof is not necessary) of the existence of a fact that has the characteristics of a crime and of the participation of that person in the fact. And before deciding whether to continue with the procedure the Judge trainer has the duty to hear the person if he/she wishes to testify. No one can be brought to trial for a crime without having been previously heard in statement.

It is true that the decision to take this statement implies a judgment provisional of the existence of criminal indications and their participation, but there are many cases in which, after taking a statement as accused, the Judge himself trainer decides to file or the Prosecutor's Office does not accuse or even, if there is an accusation, an acquittal is issued. However, there will be few cases with the media repercussion that implies the summoning of a member of the Royal Household to testify. And the most remarkable aspect of the Judge's decision trainer is the full reaffirmation of the validity of article 14 of the Spanish Constitution, which reminds us that all people are equal before the law.

And on this point I consider that the position of the anti-corruption Prosecutor's Office is absolutely irreproachable despite the fact that it has been criticized for not acting in the same way in other cases in which it does not appeal the decision of the Judges to call people to testify as defendants. I understand that the exceptionality of the decision of the Prosecutor's Office to avoid the declaration as accused is fully justified by the enormous media importance of the Judge's decision trainer. In fact, the penalty of a parade is directly proportional to the media transcendence of the person called to testify.

As I was saying, every day hundreds of people testify as defendants and very few of them make the front page of the national media and almost none of the international media. If the Prosecutor's Office considers - rightly or wrongly (I believe that no one knows the case better than Prosecutor Horrach, who is not at all suspicious of aligning himself with the powerful) - that there are no elements to bring the Infanta to trial, its Organic Statute obliges it to protect the rights of all citizens, including members of the Royal House. There are many cases in which the Prosecutor's Office, in compliance with its duty to abide by the law, does not bring charges in trials. And no one tears his clothes.

In this area, an exciting discussion arises about the limits that a Judge should have trainer during the investigation. A long time ago, the Schools of the investigating Judges was limited by preventing them from ordering imprisonment provisional without the request of the prosecution. At this point it would also be desirable -knowing the damage caused by the call to testify as a defendant- to debate whether the Judges should be limited in their ability to decide such a measure if the Public Prosecutor's Office is not going to accuse or the popular accusations cannot bring the defendant to trial in application of the doctrines of the Atutxa and Botín cases. This will be, precisely, the next great procedural dispute that will arise: Can the Infanta sit in the dock if the Public Prosecutor's Office and the private prosecution (Tax Agency) do not request it?     

Moreover, an eventual resource appeal before the Provincial Court would not automatically suspend the declaration, although the Judge or the Provincial Court itself could agree to postpone the declaration until resource is resolved in order to avoid the production of a damage difficult to repair in the honor and image if the case is finally filed against her.