Adjusting the truth in a public trial

The trial that is currently being held for the illegal wiretapping case is followed by the population, not because of the facts and statements that are given during the hearings, but through the versions of the parties, so there remains a doubt about what really happens in those four walls that isolate from public attention an issue that is precisely public, such as the use of state resources and personnel for political and petty purposes.

The trial tries to prove who ordered and profited from the illegal espionage. That is why the judges must allow this trial to be observed by anyone who wants it, through direct transmission, as was done in the hearings that were held in the Supreme Court (when that body had jurisdiction) or as it is occasionally done exclusively for journalists accommodated in a press room, set up next to the court. The trial evidence that required confidentiality has already been evacuated, so there is no reason for us to continue listening only to the opinions of the parties, but rather that we can all conclude what is really happening, without intermediaries to lie or narrate what that suits them.

The advanced trial should already be public so that we can all draw a conclusion about what is really happening, without intermediaries who lie or narrate what is convenient for them. This trial, advanced as it goes, should already be public. so that we can all draw a conclusion about what is really happening, without intermediaries who lie or narrate what is convenient for them. The trial,  as it moves forward should already be public – LA PRENSA, Oct. 2.