The Judge of Instruction issue 3 of Palma de Mallorca, by means of an order issued in the Palma Arena case, has rejected the request of the trade union "Manos Limpias" for the Infanta Cristina to be summoned to appear before the Court to testify as a defendant. Once again, a judicial resolution, through the application of the method of taking the radish by the leaves, has been the object of analysis, reaping a good issue of criticism. The most frequent headline employee, which has generated the logical uproar in public opinion, is that the Infanta has not been summoned to testify as a defendant in order "not to stigmatize her". If this is the reason, any citizen may feel justified in not wishing to testify as a defendant in any criminal case at procedure so as not to suffer such a negative consequence on his or her social consideration.

However, the reading of the order sample tells us that some interpretations have sinned of certain lightness while others have fallen directly into simple demagogy. Indeed, in the aforementioned resolution, the judge analyzes whether "with the data now available" the union's request is appropriate or not. He clarifies that the declaration as a defendant requires the prior existence of certain indications of criminality of a goal and rational nature, the trainer performs an analysis of the indications that in the petitioner's opinion exist against the Infanta and concludes, as also argued by the Public Prosecutor's Office, the Lawyer of the Autonomous Community and the representation of the Popular Party of the Balearic Islands, that there are no documents or testimonies in the case that, for the moment, support the existence of indications of participation in the investigated facts. The essence of the judicial decision is found here, in the fact that the Judge considers that at this moment there is no evidence of criminality that justifies the summons of the Infanta as a defendant; and this is what the analysis or criticism should focus on: on the arguments put forward in the order to consider that such evidence does not exist.

The other thing, the gratuitous stigmatization, is nothing more than the consequence, on the other hand logical, that for the Judge the summons of the Infanta would have without the existence of these previous indications of criminality. It is striking, especially coming from certain media, that the imputation in a criminal proceeding, of the characteristics and repercussions of the Palma Arena case, is presented to us as a totally aseptic act, like going to the dentist or washing the car. It is clear that the dissemination of any information referring to the possible authorship or participation in a criminal act is not, from the perspective of personality rights, innocuous for those who are the object of it. Especially in a country where the presumption of innocence tends to become, in the collective conscience, a presumption of guilt at the pace at which news about the investigation of criminal proceedings appear.

In this sense, it is significant that in the Preliminary Draft of the Criminal Procedure Law C by the previous Government, among the many new features it includes, it entrusts the Public Prosecutor's Office with the direction of the research under judicial control. It considers that, with the current system of indictment, judicial intervention in the communication provisional of charges, produces an unfortunate stigmatizing effect and contributes to a significant detriment to the right to the presumption of innocence. The reform also provides for a change of nomenclature: the replacement of the term "imputado" (accused) by the term "investigado" (investigated), alluding to the stigmatizing nature of the word "imputado" (accused). However, how long would it take for the word investigated to have the same connotation? The problem is not so much in the term used but in the treatment given to the news about the research of criminal acts and the perception of citizens about such news, the danger is that we act like Sheriff Little Bill (Gene Hackman) in the movie Unforgiven, who after being reproached for beating up an innocent man replies: "Innocent? innocent of what?".