The High Court of Castilla and León (TSJCyL) has agreed to dismiss and preserve a complaint filed by four nuns from the convent of Santa Clara de Belorado against a judge at the Court of Instance Briviesca in Burgos, who granted their provisional transfer to another convent. Lawyers for former Belorado nuns, on behalf of four of the five elderly nuns who were not excommunicated due to their open confrontation with the archdiocese, have accused a magistrate of perverting judicial decisions, falsifying documents, violating fundamental rights and attempted illegal detention within the framework of a civil suit for assistance for persons with disabilities. The court took the view that the facts stated in the complaint did not indicate a criminal nature and that the resolution in question was part of the normal exercise of jurisdiction.
The draft resolution indicates that the judge’s actions occurred during the processing of several precautionary measures related to the procedure for determining support for people considered to be vulnerable. According to the nuns’ report, the incident dates back to August 1st. At this time, a judicial committee made up of the Civil Guard, members of the Poor Clares Federation, and the Archdiocese of Burgos attempted to transfer the elderly nuns from Belorado, whom their companions had taken to the Orduña Monastery (Vizcaya) a few days earlier, to another convent of the Poor Clares Federation.
The complaint alleged that the judge acted arbitrarily without guaranteeing the rights of those affected to defense. In arguments presented, the nuns claimed they were not adequately briefed on the procedure, acted with “unreasonable haste” and that the resolution contained data that was allegedly false. They also accused an attempt to carry out this measure outside the jurisdiction of the judicial body at the Orduña Monastery in Vizcaya.
However, TSJCyL rejects all these arguments. First of all, remember that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a means to challenge judicial decisions with which the parties do not agree. “Dissent to the adopted decisions must be communicated through the resources established within the corresponding jurisdiction, and not through criminal prosecution,” the order states.
With respect to prior variation charges, courts have reiterated the unified doctrine. For it to exist, a judicial resolution must not only be erroneous or debatable, but also “blatantly unjust” and adopted with full knowledge of its injustice. The court noted that in this case, the nuns were considered to be in a particularly vulnerable situation due to their age and personal circumstances, and that the measures were taken within a legal framework with the motive and purpose of protecting them. The court has indicated that this vulnerable nature is also mentioned in the complaint itself.
Regarding the alleged lack of hearing, the TSJCyL acknowledges that although attempts were made to notify and hear the affected persons, the Judicial Committee responsible for the appearance was unable to enter the monastery due to the refusal of those associated with the excommunicated community that controlled the monastery at the time. Regarding the attempted enforcement of the measure in Orduña, the Chamber of Commerce acknowledges that it was a procedural irregularity, but says it is “criminally irrelevant” as it does not imply arbitrariness or an illegal exercise of judicial power.
The court also rejected the existence of any attempts to falsify documents or unlawfully deprive people of liberty. The report notes that the precautionary measures ordered were aimed at “protecting those affected” and were not accurately implemented due to a lack of cooperation from those controlling access to the monastery.
In conclusion, the Chamber agreed to file the complaint, declaring that the complaint “does not provide any basis justifying the initiation of criminal proceedings.” Expenses are declared ex officio. This resolution may be appealed to the Chamber within three days. TSJCyL had already filed the first indictment in August, but this was because there were no charges against the alleged perpetrator of the crime, who was not defined among them.
About The Author
