A judge dismisses the lawsuit of the father of Pablo Iglesias against Álvarez de Toledo for calling him a terrorist

It also condemns the father of the former Vice President of the Government and former leader of United We Can

MADRID, 18 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Court of First Instance and Instruction Number 3 of Zamora has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the father of the former Vice President of the Government and former leader of United We Can, Pablo Iglesias, against the deputy of the PP Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, from whom he claimed compensation of 18,000 euros for calling him a terrorist in the media, at the same time that he has been sentenced to pay costs.

Iglesias's father sued Álvarez de Toledo for "illegitimate interference" in his rights to honor, personal and family privacy, and his own image for describing him as a terrorist in the press, "with clear knowledge of his lack of veracity ", reason for which he claimed damages.

"Iglesias' father says that he limited himself to distributing propaganda for a demonstration. It was in that demonstration that the policemen were killed. But regardless of the activity that he carried out in the terrorist organization, he was a member of that terrorist organization," he said in an interview given in 2020.

The 'popular' deputy opposed that it was the former leader of United We Can who referred to her father as a member of the Frap, even calling him a "frapero", thus taking pride in his militancy.

The Prosecutor's Office, for its part, requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the right to freedom of expression should prevail over the right to honor, according to the sentence itself, to which Europa Press has had access.

Judge Guillerma Mongil frames the case in a conflict between both rights to recall that "the right to honor, according to reiterated jurisprudence, is limited by freedom of expression and information."

Mongil analyzes the interview to which the dispute is limited to determine that it does not state that the father of Iglesias had actively participated in the murders, nor in violent acts, "but that the defendant was part of the Profrap Committee that claimed responsibility for such actions."

It also highlights that "the political criticism" of Álvarez de Toledo "started from an initial factual basis" which were the statements of Iglesias and his father "in the interviews or articles published by them in the press."

In this sense, it points out that "the interview contains expressions or opinions based on the statements of the interested parties", "as well as on the factual data on which it is based to reach said conclusion".

However, it understands that "it can only be concluded that the defendant intended to state that she did not agree with violence and terrorism or with political formations that used said means or advocated their use."

In his opinion, Álvarez de Toledo limited himself to "concluding by way of a syllogism that the Frap was a terrorist organization because the victims of said formation were considered and classified by the Government as terrorist victims, so if the defendant belonged to the Frap, or contributed to its formation as part of the Fro Frap committee -the defendant concluded-, Pablo Iglesias is the son of a terrorist".

Thus, it resolves that "the right to freedom of expression must prevail over the right to honor because it is essential as a guarantee for the formation of a free public opinion, essential for the political pluralism that the democratic principle demands"

Mongil is based on the fact that "the expressions, opinions or value judgments issued had an undoubted general interest, referring to the historical and political past of our country, and an undoubted factual basis in the terms referred to."

And in that Álvarez de Toledo did not use "unjustified or unnecessary expressions to convey the critical purpose, even when this could annoy, disturb or upset the person against whom it is directed."

To this he adds that "it is obvious" that both "have an undoubted public relevance", for which reason "it is necessary to understand the expressions expressed within the general context and climate of political discussion in which it takes place, as well as the dialectical and political confrontation between the interveners".