group The resolution of the Provincial Court of Madrid confirming the file of the case opened as a result of the concentration of a large number of people, called by the Platform of people affected by the mortgage, in front of the home of the Vice-President of the Government, has generated a huge media stir. The main problem raised by the order of the Provincial Court is that it has been interpreted by most of the media as a kind of legitimization of the escraches, which have thus received a letter of nature and a stamp of legality. This interpretation is hasty and erroneous, the judicial decision has limited itself to judge a specific case taking into account the set of concurrent circumstances, the Court has considered relevant the behavior of the people gathered, the shouts uttered, the posters they carried, the non-use of violence or force on things as well as the absence of attack on the police forces and other people. Based on this set of elements and on the basis of different arguments, it has reached the conclusion, legally debatable, that the facts cannot be included in the criminal types of threats, coercion, public disorder or illegal demonstration.

That said, the controversial resolution in no way establishes or sets any general rule subject or guideline of action that binds another court that has to rule on similar facts that, of course, may be assessed differently depending on the circumstances of the case. Undoubtedly, after some time, it will be the Supreme Court and, finally, the Constitutional Court that will end up ruling on the phenomenon of the demonstrations called in front of the homes of politicians, and that will formulate criteria of interpretation that will allow to reconcile the exercise of the different rights that are at stake. The problem is that it has been the resolution itself that, in a rather ill-advised way, has led to the phenomenon of escrache being considered legitimate, and it has done so by considering it as an ordinary mechanism of democratic participation of civil society; it is shocking that it is qualified as ordinary, that is, as something common, regular and that happens habitually, which, until a few months ago was a internship totally unknown to the majority of citizens.

Another criticizable aspect of the resolution is to consider that the fact that the meeting or demonstration takes place in front of the home of the vice-president is not relevant. On the contrary, in no way can the place where the right of meeting or demonstration is exercised be considered indifferent. The importance of these rights for the normal development of the political activity of citizens in a democratic society is unquestionable, but, like any other right, they are subject to limits. The legal assets that may be affected are not the same in a demonstration in front of a Ministry as in a demonstration in front of a politician's home, in the area where all the daily activities of private life are carried out, which have nothing to do with the exercise of political activity and which affect the rights of third parties who have nothing to do with the matter.

At final, the legal-political discussion on escraches has only just begun; during the parliamentary processing of the new Law on Citizen Security, which, by the way, does not expressly allude to them, they will return to the forefront of the discussion. In the meantime, it would not hurt to keep in mind the content of article 10.1 of the Constitution, which serves as a gateway to the regulation of fundamental rights and duties: "The dignity of the person, the inviolable rights that are inherent to him, the free development of the personality, respect for the law and the rights of others are the foundation of political order and social peace".