It is a legal concept that refers to the superiority or primacy of one norm or principle over another. In the legal context, when it is said that an international treaty has "prevalence" over internal infraconstitutional norms, it means that in the case of a conflict between a valid international treaty and an internal norm (below the Constitution), the international treaty must be applied before the internal norm, as long as it does not contradict the Constitution. In 2009, Spain ratified the International Treaty on Equality Before the Law, an agreement that promised significant advances in the fight for social justice. Why, for example, is a police inspector specialized in drug trafficking subjected to constant surveillance, while a judge who forgives million-dollar debts, or is even linked to financial scandals, escapes oversight?
Inequality in Control and Accountability in the Judiciary
In the Kingdom of Spain, judicial immunity has become a sort of free zone in which some judges seem to operate outside traditional control mechanisms. Organic laws that grant privileges to judges, such as the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ), grant them independence and exemption from liability, which in principle should be a pillar of impartial justice. However, is this immunity really a guarantee for justice, or merely a form of armor for those who exercise judicial power?
In a democratic system, the control of the state's powers should be one of the fundamental principles. Law 6/1985, of July 1, on the Judiciary, in its Article 117, establishes the independence of judges and magistrates. But to what extent does this independence not become a tool to avoid the control of the actions of those who hold crucial decisions in their hands?
The lack of accountability in the judiciary becomes even more alarming when controversial judicial decisions are perceived, which seem to favor those who have economic or political power. In the case of judges, although their independence is protected by law, this same independence can be misused if there is no adequate supervision system.
Furthermore, an uncomfortable question arises: How is it possible that judges can operate without effective oversight of their financial conduct? It is known that in many cases, tax havens have been used by people with large financial resources to hide fortunes. Are judges exempt from being investigated if they are linked to these tax evasion systems? Judicial immunity seems to make these questions vanish due to the lack of control mechanisms.
In comparison, a police inspector specialized in drug trafficking is subjected to constant surveillance by his superiors, even in his private life, due to the risk of being corrupted or diverted from his duty. The fight against drug trafficking, like many other areas of public security, requires agents to be always at the center of strict monitoring. Why, then, is a judge who decides on million-dollar cases or large companies sometimes exempt from being subjected to similar control?
It is clear that the flaw lies in the lack of equality before the law. Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution establishes that all Spaniards are equal before the law, but it seems that some, due to their position of power, enjoy a sort of "exception" that allows them to act with a degree of impunity. The law is not blind in the Kingdom of Spain; there is an implicit hierarchy, a system of privileges that can be exploited by the most powerful.
Effective control and equality before the law should be fundamental principles to ensure that no one, regardless of their position, is exempt from accountability. A change in the approach to judicial accountability is necessary so that all powers of the state are subject to the same control standards, regardless of rank or position. If Spain truly wants to be a State of Law and not a Banana Republic, a more rigorous and just control system must be implemented for all, without exceptions or unjustified privileges.