Special justice systems are often specially invented to allow injustice procedures (and a bad half, if that means that common justice systems are fair! ). These days the so-called National High Court and the Supreme Court, two blows with bloody text, have brought to light the essence of the injustice procedures surrounding the young and Catalan sovereigns of Altsasu.

In addition to the central core of the special procedures, they have highlighted in particular the problems that the procedures themselves pose to their promoters and supporters. It is not an easy task to turn a night's play into a crime of terrorism. Judges need an extraordinary pen and head delicacy to perform this operation, whatever algorithms they want to go through. It is precisely the refineries to which the special procedures of justice are subject that are necessary. Therefore, from the point of view of professionalism, a judge has to be very little appreciated to insist on that endeavour: more than a justice maker, because he prefers to be a executioner. There is self-degradation! He may do his job as a executioner, but in the end he will not get a dignified medal to stand up as a judge: the medal of honour will be withdrawn tomorrow or later by another court that judges his trial.

The youngest in Altsasu is a case which does not correspond in any way to a special court, unlike that in Catalonia, which, in all appearances, belongs to the Supreme Court, which has another particularity, although an attempt has been made to put it in the hands of a court that had been set up to commit injustices. They have not been able to do so, since some of the accused are apprehended. However, Pablo Llarena moves like the one who would have liked to act the most in a court with less defensive guarantees, in the way that a court expressly created to commit injustice would act. And he got full of mud on the floors. In the crazy contradictions, in the contradictions that inevitably entails putting a pure political question in the hands of the justices.

Because, as things stand, politicians who have the same purposes and the same passions as the judge, in whose hands was the management of public money in its entirety, cannot recognise the misuse of that money if they do not denounce themselves. The confrontation between Pablo Llarena and Cristóbal Montoro has a difficult solution.

After all, the pretension that the political issue is a matter of justice at all costs makes the longing for injustice, the institutional political issue between those who want to impose the same penalties, a political issue of the highest standard.

They choke in their mud.