31/07/2026, 8:17
This evidence before the European Parliament in Petition 1238/2026 and before the Spanish Ministry of Justice in State Liability Claim RESPAT 2026 0327 blows the whistle on how Spain's Courts of Violence Against Women network operates outside European fundamental rights standards.
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently ruled under Article 10 of the Convention that the disclosure and public exposure of human rights violations by public authorities is fully protected as a matter of vital public interest. Consequently, any state retaliation or threat aimed at suppressing such evidence directly breaches the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the core principles of accountability in a democratic society, as firmly established in Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR 2008.
REDACTED Final RESPAT_2026_0327_Alegaciones_Amplias_DocC_y_DocD_Edwards SPANISH.pdf
1. Certified Admissions by the Public Defender (Documento D)
- Written Proof of Rights Blindness: On January 15, 2024, a 30-year veteran public defence lawyer and university lecturer confessed in writing: "Nobody NEVER has put me in this position... nor were these [human rights/proportionality frameworks] ever invoked... Spanish Law is obeyed".
- Rejection of European Alignment: On January 12, 2024, the state-assigned lawyer openly defended the system's friction against international standards, texting: "The Courts and Tribunals in Spain do not work like the Anglo-Saxon ones".
- Systemic Obstruction of Evidence: On October 11, 2023, the lawyer documented structural bias, confirming that when she attempted to present critical defence evidence, "the judge does not permit questions about this... I always try, and SHE DENIES [them]" (Judge Aurora Angulo Gonzlaez de Lara).
- Blanket Contact Prohibitions: On January 12, 2024, text logs confirm that the system enforces automated family separations without looking at individual facts: "The Prosecutor DID NOT authorise SUPERVISED VISITS WITH YOUR CHILDREN".
2. Formal Court Submissions & Appeals (Anexos A2.1 & A2.2)
- Proof of De Facto Child Separation: In an official court plea filed on January 17, 2024, the defence formally recorded that children were completely cut off from their father "WITHOUT A RESTRAINING ORDER HAVING BEEN ISSUED IN THIS REGARD CONCERNING THE TWO CHILDREN".
- Bypassing Statutory Safeguards: The same January 17 filing establishes that the court engineered a total legal vacuum by explicitly noting that "THE HEARING UNDER ARTICLE 544 Ter OF THE LECrim HAS NEVER BEEN HELD," bypassing mandatory legal avenues to establish visitation.
- The "Elementary Lesson" on Constitutional Rights: In a formal appeal on January 31, 2024, the Gender Violence Court's failure to respect basic jurisprudence forced the veteran defence lawyer to copy-paste an elementary, first-year law textbook breakdown of the triple-test of the 'principle of proportionality' directly to the senior Gender Violence magistrate Aurora Angulo Gonzalez de Lara.
- Citing Irreparable Injury to Infants: The January 31 appellate filing formally warned the judge on the record that the court's mechanical inertia was actively inflicting "irreversible and irreparable psychological damage" on two young children structurally forced to forget their father.
