スペインの2002年11月のプレステージ石油輸送船沈没事故の裁判では、検察当局にさらなる十分な手段が必要
“La instrucción del ‘Prestige’ necesitaba más medios y experiencia internacional”
El fiscal del caso mantiene que se cometió el delito ecológico que niega la sentencia
"Me gustaría haber podido acceder a las pruebas del pleito en Estados Unidos", afirma
Paola Obelleiro A Coruña 30 NOV 2013 - 20:24 CET
"The instruction of the 'Prestige' needed more resources and international experience"
The prosecutor contends that environmental crime that denies the judgment was committed
"I would have been able to access the tests of litigation in the United States," says
Paola Obelleiro A Coruña 30 NOV 2013 - 20:24 CET
Prosecutor from minute zero in the process by the Prestige disaster , and believes a miracle that the matter proceed to trial. And now after the guilty verdict without leaving the disaster , Álvaro García Ortiz ( Lumbrales , Salamanca, 1967 ) is prepared to continue the legal battle , with an appeal to the Supreme recognizing complicated. He does not want nor can review the decision of the Court of A Coruña. But obstacles and underlines the severe suppression of evidence even after a decade of investigation and trial of nine months. And that hurt Spain 's failed lawsuit against the company tries endorsed the oil . García Ortiz is convinced that no matter dictates to be " yes there were environmental crime ." As a representative of the Spanish and French victims , insists that the whole society is harmed . " Harmed all of us and now we have to see who pays and how ," he says .
Question. So does a nine-month long trial was necessary ?
Response . It was very intense and demanding a legal and high technical level .
P. Do you understand the indignation aroused by the acquittal ?
R. Neither I nor I want to make a value judgment of sentence. People have a right to comment on the Justice. But another thing is that an institution like the prosecution can say what you think . Respect quite what the judges put in that sentence. It's very complicated issue , with facts and complex conditions . The legal views are held on resources. We maintain that there were other environmental crime and so resort .
P. As a prosecutor in his closing argument asked a brave decision, and that a precedent was not.
R. Since it was not a condemnation of the captain of the ship by an environmental offense, the court did not have the opportunity to open more doors . But hey, so Justice.
P. Eleven years of trial so that there is no blame. Was it flawed from the beginning?
R. Yes , I think there were many factors in this process. The judge to instruct the case can not choose , is playing . We can discuss it more or less operational. Does the territorially competent court as Corcubión the capacity and ability to make a complex statement ? Despite the efforts of staff , cost a lot, the instruction was very stuck. We would have liked a more streamlined instruction, with more resources and more international experience . Expect a letter rogatory elsewhere could mean years. Now that no longer happens, international law instruments have improved. There is also difficult to understand that litigation conflicting interests between the state and large corporations with interests in maritime trade. Many tests came later , as seen in the trial were very difficult to find or know .
P. Do you believe , as the president of the court, which hurt much the lawsuit tried in United States against Spain ABS, society endorsed the Prestige?
R. But are distinct processes , they have not had access in Spain and the United States to the same tests , both which overturned the state as ABS and professional environment of the master. I would have loved to have access to all the evidentiary material , and did not get . But it is certainly not the fault of state attorneys .
P. The sentence now charging blame against ABS and even prompted civil, when the Court itself rejected in 2008 include the cause .
R. Does your procedural logic. If you decided not criminal conviction , civil proceedings are opened and is required to put in the statement. Another thing is that whether or not that possibility, and procedures as they tried to Spain against ABS in the U.S. can prevent it.
P. The ruling even shields the target of 22.7 million euros deposited 11 years ago by the insurer.
R. It's a very interesting question and that legal discussion will be subject to appeal, but I can not say anything. In the notice of our action , we say that the money we have to go there. There must be no return but to see what is done with it. The judgment is not final and is an amount for mandatory , because it says the international treaty , the victims. We must ensure that.
P. Do you have a result that the British ship insurer also will shield before the justice of his country to avoid paying if Spain declared civil liable for the disaster ?
R. I will not say anything at the moment .
P. Before the Supreme Court, only valid legal arguments for an appeal . Is it very difficult to thrive , no?
R. It is a good reflection. In Spain we have no appeal, no right of appeal as such. Only the extraordinary appeal and that makes it extraordinary restricted , and still more to go for an acquittal to a conviction. We are facing a legally complicated scenario . But we're not talking about another ten years. We maintain our claim that there were other environmental crime , I argue legally .
P. Will you ask the prosecution , as will the state 's conviction for disobedience Mangouras incurring obligations ?
R. Exhaust all legal avenues and that's one . You may ask the Supreme.
P. And then there are the liability claims .
R. The Spanish victims , in very general terms , have been compensated to a greater or lesser degree but no one is ever fully compensated . But there is no social pressure from the Spanish victims to be compensated because either the state or society , we all finishing paying part of this disaster . This leads to two things : first there is a part of the victims , the French , who have not had that correspondence with your state or the Spanish State , have not been more than compensated by objective instruments that are very partial . Who are the losers here? We all are. Because on one hand which hurts the environment hurts us all , and because the whole society has had to help the people directly affected by the disaster were compensated . And it's a good way to see the issue of the victims and who and how we have to try to be paid .
P. Is a retreat from the Erika , which itself was an exemplary sentence in 2012 ?
R. They are different cases , very different though apparently similar facts. Erika had with a stage and a fully European environment. It is an important component. It is true that progress was made with Erika , but the doors that were opened by this disaster , here we could not get them to understand the court that prosecuted people were not responsible for the catastrophe.
P. The polluter pays principle comes to nothing .
R. Paradoxically, it is not applicable to the Prestige by the specificity of the topic of hydrocarbons. Was applied to Erika because there was a resolution of the European Court, which considered that the waste producer , Total- Fina, was responsible for the remainder. It was a way to hook . The Prestige does not know who is the producer of the waste .
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿