The United Kingdom returns to study the immunity of the honorary king

partial resource. This is the door that a UK judge left open for the honorary king to appeal against a decision of a judge who held, in March, that Juan Carlos I did not have the immunity of a Head of State. The decision refers to the years before his abdication, prior to 2014.

Specifically, the honorary could ask the court to review the decision on actions prior to that date, between 2012, when his former lover Corinna Larsen began to be accused of harassment and threats, and 2014, when he stopped serving as head of state. , according to the capture F Quoting a spokeswoman for the plaintiff’s legal team. Although it is only part of the lawsuit, because Larsen’s indictment spans from 2012 to 2020.

Initially, the judge decided that Fakhri did not have immunity during that period because the acts he is accused of were not “acts of the state”, but were allegedly carried out in his own capacity, so he could go to trial

Now, the new UK Justice Decision allows you to appeal this decision with a partial appeal required of Appellate court And that he needed permission, to request a review of what had been decided by the High Court in London.

What could an honorary king now challenge in his defense?

The key to the partial appeal the emeritus can now file is whether or not he enjoyed immunity between 2012 and 2014, the years prior to his abdication covered by the complaint.

The Pensioner’s legal team maintains that the King was protected by the immunity of the Crown, and thus, although they did not accept accusation, their actions would have been taken under an “official or authority” position, as stated. F.

The new argument that the defense Foot To the Court of Appeal is that the consequences of this trial directly affect the current King Philip VI, since he has a direct connection to the honorary, as they argued before the British courts, relying on the diplomatic immunity provided for in Vienna Convention.

In addition, according to the defense, he was still king at that time and would be part of the royal house understood as an institution. It is then understood that his actions would be guaranteed with immunity as they were during the period in which he was still in office, and to protect the current monarch, for which reason he cannot be prosecuted.

[Qué es la inmunidad de Estado y por qué la Justicia británica se la ha denegado al rey emérito]

Esther López, a doctor of international law from the University of Distance of Madrid (Udima), explains to that it is necessary to start from the fact that the trial takes place according to English law and that the law protecting immunity is Immunity law statement 1978 which recognizes the King’s privilege Until the moment of his abdication. Now it will be up to the judge’s interpretation if the acts he is accused of took place in the private sphere or “in the performance of his duties as head of state,” as the defense argues.

Can immunity protection be extended as an institution?

The defense alleges that at that period he was head of state, and that he later continued to belong to the royal house which is understood as an institution, and has a strong connection with the current king. Therefore, the case must be appealed due to the “complexity” of the situation, as there are no precedents in the English jurisdiction where the immunity of a former head of state must be assessed for the alleged acts that occurred during and after his tenure of office. .

See also  Trump campaign gives up part of legal challenge to Pennsylvania election results | US News

From Chabanix Abogados, specialists in international criminal law and extradition, explained to that “British law is much more interpretive than continental law. In other words, it is based more on other previous judicial decisions on similar facts”. Being an “extraordinary” case and having some very unusual characteristics, everything indicates that it will be a matter of interpretation by the judge in determining whether or not he is still a member of the royal house,” they say.

On the other hand, Lopez specifies that national law usually grants appraisal as a rule of thumb to all former high officials, but not inviolability as such. Internationally, immunity is only provided for heads of state Energeticand for the procedures carried out “while exercising their functions”.

By “direct” influence on the current king, given the complexity of being between the transitional period between two kings, it is argued that this must be interpreted in another way. In this sense, the honorary defense presents an appeal based on international law, which must be interpreted under the regional legislation of a particular country.

How is Corina Larsen’s lawsuit against the honorary king?

Corina Larsen denounced Juan Carlos I at the end of 2020 for the alleged “harassment” that has been going on since 2012, before his abdication, and until the end of their relationship. He blames her for being “persecuted and threatened” by agents of the Spanish National Intelligence Center in London, her place of residence, and in Monte Carlo, where she also lives. These actions “threatened” their safety and that of their children, according to the lawsuit accusation published by British media in July 2021. financial times.

On the other hand, Larsen also denounced him for defamation in reference to the words of Juan Carlos I, who accused her of stealing 64.8 million euros. According to the plaintiff, this money was donated by the honorary king in 2012, after which he demanded that it be returned, due to his refusal and the consequent alleged harassment.

See also  Turespaña activates the You Deserve Spain campaign in the UK

What does trial mean under English law?

The crime for which Al-Fakhri will be tried in the event of his immunity being denied shall be criminal offenses English, since the suit was brought in the British High Court of Justice and for acts committed in English territory. Lopez clarifies that the crimes he is accused of committing are not international criminal offenses, but “exist in the criminal law of the country in question, which is usually regional.”

If, under the interpretation of English law, immunity has forfeited, the next investigation of the case and verification of the facts declared by the accusation and committed will be carried out. within English territoryShould this occur, the trial will take place on the basis of British regulations.

The expert explains that in the international field there are some indications that would support the appeal, but it must be taken into account that “it is not a uniform practice that has created a customary rule”, and this is pending the assessment of the British court, which will do so based on the allegation, based on International practices and based on the Immunity Act 1978.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.