Text original publicat per No es época para tontos.
What happens when the people entrusted with judging everyone else become almost impossible to investigate themselves?
This investigation examines one of the most uncomfortable questions in any democracy: where does judicial independence end and judicial impunity begin? Judges need protection from political pressure, media campaigns and private interests. But independence cannot become immunity from criminal responsibility. The black robe is supposed to represent responsibility under the law — not protection from it.
The journey begins internationally. From the United States’ “Kids for Cash” scandal to Colombia’s Cartel de la Toga, from convicted Spanish magistrates to corruption cases in France, the documentary examines how judicial crime can operate without the classic envelope of cash. Corruption can also mean manipulating proceedings, abusing pre-trial detention, leaking confidential information, manufacturing evidence, delaying cases until they expire or using judicial authority to destroy an opponent.
The investigation then moves to Girona, Spain, and the judicial-auction world surrounding Infocobro and businessman Jorge Cuxart. Parliamentary records referred to court-authorized wiretaps in which auctioneers discussed alleged privileged relationships involving police commanders and judges in Girona. The central question is not simply whether such relationships existed, but what institutions did once those conversations pointed toward powerful figures inside the judicial environment.
Finally, the analysis reaches Andorra, a microstate with strong anti-corruption laws on paper but an extraordinarily small judicial ecosystem. In 2025, according to the sources examined, the entire judicial career consisted of just 28 people: 15 lower-court judges and 13 magistrates. A five-member governing council appoints, promotes, inspects and disciplines judges, while only one of its members is elected by the judges themselves. GRECO has repeatedly raised concerns about balance and judicial representation within this structure.
The documentary examines what it describes as institutional shielding: not necessarily a secret conspiracy, but a structural closed loop in which professional, political and personal relationships become so concentrated that accountability becomes increasingly difficult. It reviews the David Moynat case, the prosecution of former CSJ president Enric Casadeval, and judicial-delay cases in which citizens waited for years while the supervisory body publicly emphasized finding solutions rather than imposing sanctions.
The central paradox is stark: Andorra has laws criminalizing corruption and prevarication, yet the investigation highlights the absence in the public historical record of firm criminal convictions against Andorran judges for those offences. The documentary therefore asks whether an absence of convictions proves institutional purity — or whether it should instead trigger a deeper examination of the system designed to police the judiciary itself.
The conclusion reaches far beyond Andorra. A healthy justice system does not defend its reputation by denying the possibility of misconduct. It defends itself by investigating judges with the same rigor applied to everyone else, exposing wrongdoing when it occurs and imposing criminal responsibility where the evidence and the law require it.
Because the most important question inside a courtroom is sometimes not what the law says. It is: who judges the judges?
