Talk:Audiencia Nacional

Article title
Shouldn't this article be located at Audiencia Nacional de España? Slicing 08:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the accuracy of this article. Baltasar Garzón is not a judge in the Audiencia Nacional, but an Instructor or investigation judge of the cases that, afterwords will be judged by this court. Although even the mass media in Spain do not understand this, the law is clear: The Juzgados Centrales de Instrucción and the Audiencia Nacional ([http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/lo6-1985.l1t4.html articles 62-69 of this law)are two different courts, as can be read in the Organic Law about the Judicial Power in Spain. There are different tribunals with seat in Madrid and jurisdiction over all Spain: the Audiencia Nacional (articles 62-69), a tribunal that acts with three magistrates (as can be seen in 11-M case), but there are several Juzgados, with just one magistrate: But I'm not sure how to write and explain all this in good English.--Joanenglish 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Juzgados Centrales de Instrucción (art. 88) one of them served by Garzón, that investigates but do not judge;
 * 2) Juzgados Centrales de lo Penal (art. 89 bis 3), that judge the same kind of crimes as the Audiencia Nacional, but when the punishment is lower;
 * 3) Juzgados Centrales de Vigilancia Penitenciaria (art. 94.4). This tribunal do not investigate or judge, but resolve questions about the people already condemned and who are in prison;
 * 4) Juzgado Central de Menores (art. 96.2): judges the same crimes as the Audiencia Nacional and Juzgados Centrales de lo Penal, but when the crimes are commited by people who are not eighteen years old yet.

Appeals chamber
I don't understand this sentence (which is not in es:Audiencia Nacional de España): "Appeals Chamber, which addresses differences between the law and the decisions of the Penal Chamber". Perhaps the author means that this chamber hears appeals, on points of law only, against judgements of the Penal chamber? I understand the current phrasing as implying that it is usual, and even normal, that the Penal chamber gives judgements that explicitly contradict statutory law. Apokrif (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Has suspicious sentence in old introduction (before Nov.2017) any merit?
The old introduction read: ''... Audiencia Nacional was created in 1977 at the same time as the Public Order Tribunal (Tribunal de Orden Público), a Francoist institution, ceased to exist. Despite what many people think, the two work differently, and both the Spanish Constitutional Court and the European Commission of Human Rights have observed this tribunal to be legal.''

"Despite what many people think..." is quite suspicious, so I tried to find some facts, but to no definitive avail. Only one respective (but not well established) case: Martinez Sala and others v. Spain (Press release 2004, wcd.coe.int) --No2post (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)