Podcast Summary: Hoy por Hoy – La Entrevista

Host: Àngels Barceló
Guest: Joaquín Giménez, magistrado emérito del Tribunal Supremo
Date: November 21, 2025
Episode Theme:
A critical examination of judicial impartiality, probative standards, and the responsibility of the Fiscalía (public prosecutor) in dismantling disinformation (“bulos”) within high-profile legal cases.

Overview

In this concise yet sharp interview, Àngels Barceló speaks with Joaquín Giménez, emeritus Supreme Court magistrate, about the implications of a recent controversial court ruling. The discussion centers on the legitimacy of the judicial process, the burden of proof, the role of the public prosecutor in combating misinformation, and fundamental issues of impartiality and justice.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Nature of the Ruling and Its Justification

• Foundational Principle: A judicial decision (“fallo”) is only as valid as its underlying justification or reasoning.
  • Quote: “Un fallo vale lo que valga su fundamentación. … Un fallo no puede justificarse en un acto de fe… vale lo que valga su motivación. Y esa motivación hay que extraerla de la prueba…”
    — Joaquín Giménez (00:17)

2. Concerns About Tribunal Impartiality

• Composition of the Tribunal: Five of the seven magistrates both admitted and later judged the case—raising questions about objectivity.
  • Quote: “La imparcialidad del tribunal queda, a mi modo de ver, severamente cuestionada por dos razones. … los cinco que lo admiten son los cinco que juzgan… ha habido un cambio en el objeto del proceso… una iniciativa que lesiona, a mi modo de ver, de una manera grave la imparcialidad del tribunal.”
    — Joaquín Giménez (01:04)
• Procedural Novation: The shift in the subject of the process (from a specific “nota informativa” to attached documents) initiated by the same judges further undermines impartiality.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Testimonies

• Nature and Weight of Evidence: The prosecution relied on exhaustive documentary collection (“una pesca de arrastre de libro”) and testimonial evidence.
  • Witness Credibility: Some key testimonies were discounted due to the constitutional right to journalistic secrecy (Article 25); testimonies from those with a clear personal enmity were flagged as questionable.
  • Quote: “Los testimonios no se cuentan, se pesan. … Y un testimonio de una persona que de una manera clara ha acreditado una enemistad con el imputado, pues la veracidad de ese testimonio por lo menos es cuestionable.”
    — Joaquín Giménez (02:32)

4. The Circularity of Demonstrating and Dismantling Disinformation

• Role of the Fiscalía: Central responsibility to debunk proven misinformation (“bulos acreditados”). This requires providing objective evidence, not just assertions.
  • Quote: “Evidentemente cuando hay un bulo acreditado… tienes que desmontar ese bulo.”
    — Joaquín Giménez (04:07)
• Complexities: There’s a contradiction when the data used to prove an accusation is the same data deemed confidential, potentially justifying the original legal action. Giménez calls this a “círculo vicioso” (vicious circle).
  • Quote: “Es la pescadilla que se muerde la cola. Yo de verdad, es que… de las dudas no puede surgir una certeza.”
    — Joaquín Giménez (04:46)

5. Limits of Certainty and Judicial Action

• Standard of Proof: Emphatically reaffirms that certainty cannot be founded on doubt.
  • Quote: “De las dudas no puede salir una certeza.”
    — Joaquín Giménez (05:42)
• Final Provocation: Suggests that, had the public prosecutor resigned during proceedings, it would fundamentally alter the perception of the ruling—leaving this point open for reflection.
  • Quote: “El fiscal general hubiera dimitido a lo largo de la instrucción se hubiera dictado sentencia condenatoria. Yo dejo la pregunta ahí.”
    — Joaquín Giménez (05:52)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the value of judicial reasoning:
  “Un fallo vale lo que valga su fundamentación. … Un fallo no puede justificarse en un acto de fe…”
  — Joaquín Giménez (00:17)

• On weighing testimony:
  “Los testimonios no se cuentan, se pesan.”
  — Joaquín Giménez (02:32)

• On the role of the Fiscalía in fighting disinformation:
  “Evidentemente cuando hay un bulo acreditado… tienes que desmontar ese bulo.”
  — Joaquín Giménez (04:07)

• On legal certainty:
  “De las dudas no puede salir una certeza.”
  — Joaquín Giménez (05:42)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:17 – Giménez discusses the need for court decisions to rest on solid justification, not faith.
• 01:04 – Questions on tribunal impartiality and problematic procedural changes.
• 02:32 – On the differing weight of testimonial evidence and the constitutional right to secrecy.
• 04:07 – The prosecutor’s duty to dismantle accredited falsehoods.
• 04:46 – The logical contradiction in using the same evidence to both prove and deny a bulo.
• 05:42 – Affirmation that certainty cannot be founded on doubt.
• 05:52 – The open-ended hypothetical regarding the resignation of the Fiscal General.

Conclusion

This interview offers a sharp look into the challenges faced by the Spanish justice system, especially concerning impartiality, standards of evidence, and the critical public responsibility of dismantling disinformation. Joaquín Giménez calls for greater transparency, rigor in proof, and a re-examination of procedural fairness within high-stakes legal proceedings. His repeated assertion—“de las dudas no puede salir una certeza”—encapsulates the episode’s challenge to judicial practice based on anything less than solid and objective justification.