SINCE the Urdangarín case hit the press in 2011, the image of the Royal House has been gradually deteriorating. There has been no shortage of other unfortunate events that have contributed to this, but this is perhaps the one with the greatest impact and media repercussions. The comings and goings, twists and turns of all subject of writings and documents from the most varied judicial instances and legal institutions have turned the process of Iñaki Urdangarín into "the Spanish case" par excellence. For the Royal Household, it is a real nightmare, a kind of distressing and unsettling monotonous and uninterrupted drip of bad news capable of piercing any institution, no matter how rooted it is in a people. With the recent indictment of the Infanta Cristina for an alleged tax crime and money laundering, the Spanish Monarchy has once again suffered a new setback from which only with great effort and, in my opinion, with a radical change of strategy will it be able to recover.

I do not intend with these lines to question the honorability of Her Royal Highness. I have all my respect for her. Even less, to break her presumption of innocence. I feel repugnance for those attitudes that condemn before the time, that throw the stone and hide the hand, that frivolously rush down the slippery path of murmuring and defamation, for the easy and daring comment, but I am also repulsed by the position of those who childishly close their eyes to the crude reality or turn a deaf ear to relevant facts and weighty legal arguments. I believe, unfortunately, that these two attitudes have been given quotation, more than enough, in this painful case that is undermining the credibility of the Crown. Nor is it my wish to add a new legal argument to the thousands that have been put forward in all subject of venues for and against those pronounced by the legal agents involved in this thorny affair. One fine day, I will read with the required calm the sentence of the case. Then, and only then, will be the time to give an opinion with some legal basis.

My purpose is more complex. What attention is trying to defend is that a modern and advanced democratic society such as ours cannot afford the luxury of gambling everything on the Criminal Law card. This is a gamble that does not usually lead to a good outcome. The Criminal Law is necessary, essential, yes, but justice cannot be imprisoned within the iron bars of a highly meticulous and technified punitive system because it is the way that opens the door to legitimate coercion. Justice, in its most plenary session of the Executive Council and noble sense, is more, much more, than all that. Hence, not all criminal subject is fair by definition or that one can speak of the justice or injustice of an indictment, as in the case of the Infanta Cristina. Politics, law, morality, but also, why not, communication as such, converge and participate in the idea of democratic justice. Justice, therefore, is not flat, but polyhedral.

When Clinton publicly acknowledged his 'terrible moral error', the people showed an unparalleled generosity in

The ethical, social, political and even media dimension, as I say, of Justice is not entirely satisfied with the simple application of a punitive order, however valid and necessary it may seem. It would be totally unfair, although not punishable, for example, if a monarchist media did not give sufficient account of an alleged conviction of the Infanta in order to protect the Crown, as well as if a republican media did not treat an acquittal with the respect it deserves. Media justice does not necessarily coincide with criminal justice, nor with social justice. Therefore, the different dimensions of Justice do not overlap, but complement each other. The juridical dimension, and specifically the punitive one, is constitutive of every democratic society anchored in the Rule of Law, but, I repeat, it is not the only one, and even less the most important dimension of a well-constituted mature society. The legal system is the foundation, pillar, anchor of any society, but it is not the roof, wall or door, and a good house needs all its components.

I have stopped at this point because, in my opinion, in order to reach the fairest social solution to our case it is core topic to separate the legal aspect from the political and media aspects. Let the criminal proceedings follow their scrupulous and meticulous pace, let Judge Castro carry out his investigative work, let the Infanta's lawyers fulfill their role of attendance, let the Prosecutor's Office and the sursuncorda play their role, let the sentence be pronounced, appealed, if applicable, and a long and almost endless etcetera, and let us ask ourselves, instead, with a broader view, the following question: Should Infanta Cristina jump into the limelight and give an account to Spanish society, not only to Judge Castro, in the first person, about the alleged facts that refer to her? My answer is clear, forceful, sharp. Yes, the Infanta Cristina has to address the public opinion because social responsibility far exceeds the narrow limits of criminal responsibility. Yes, Her Royal Highness the Infanta Cristina Federica Victoria Antonia de la Santísima Trinidad de Borbón y Grecia, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca, seventh in the order of succession to the Spanish Crown, should speak to the whole Spanish society about her alleged political corruption before the judge pronounces. After that, it will be too late. I think this is the best way to close as soon as possible the wound through which the Monarchy is bleeding.

We are all equal before the law. All citizens have the same responsibility before the law, but not all citizens have the same responsibility before society. The greater the social influence, the greater the social responsibility. The Infanta has the right to remain silent before the judge, to defend herself using all the legal means at her disposal, but she has the duty (not strictly legal, but social) to inform the public, to justify her conduct, for better or worse. More: to ask for forgiveness, if necessary. From the media point of view, this courageous act of His Royal Highness would stop the free fall of the Spanish Monarchy and reconcile it with its people. It is true that no one is obliged to testify against himself, that no one is expected to throw stones against his own roof, but it is also true that when the stones that fall on one's own roof bounce on the roof of others (in this case the Monarchy, and indirectly the image of Spain) there is a social duty to act to avoid indirect damage. Chain reactions have to be cut off from the outset. In this case, the public interest prevails over the private interest of the Infanta, however laudable it may be.
 

We CANNOT apply in this case a policy of minimums, but a generous, far-reaching policy, which marks a new style of behavior in the face of alleged cases of political corruption. Political transparency does not lag behind legal transparency, when there is nothing to lose because the sentence has already been passed, but anticipates it, in order to avoid greater evils. Herein lies the heroism of an exemplary behavior not required by the criminal canons, but order , which is shouted by the people. Spanish society forgave the King for his infamous hunt in Botswana when, as soon as he left his hospital room, he acknowledged with simplicity and humility that he had made a mistake and promised not to do anything similar again. Something similar happened in the Lewinsky case, although Bill Clinton was slow to react. When the 42nd president of the United States publicly acknowledged his "terrible moral error", the people showed a generosity unexpected by the most expert political analysts. On the complete opposite side is the Watergate case, which ended with a stubborn President Nixon, cornered and buried by conclusive evidence and proof.

The principle of social transparency, which, I repeat, goes beyond legal transparency, is at the basis of any trust that a society may place in a public person, such as HRH Infanta Cristina. It is not a question of criminal coercion, but of social loyalty. Therefore, the Infanta should speak to the media, justify her actions and behavior to Spanish society and assume political and social responsibilities, if necessary. As in the rule of law, the judge will have the last word, but the last word is not the only word. Before that of the judge, the voice that society is waiting to hear is that of the Infanta. It is, therefore, the time of the Infanta Cristina de Borbón y Grecia.