Original text published by No es época para tontos.
This investigation examines whether Andorra’s justice system has the structural safeguards required to guarantee genuine judicial independence in one of Europe’s smallest and most interconnected states. The issue is not whether every judge, prosecutor or institution is corrupt, but whether the system is capable of detecting, preventing and correcting conflicts of interest, institutional dependency, excessive delays and pressure on lawyers when they occur.
The podcast analyses GRECO’s concerns over the composition and independence of the Consell Superior de la Justícia, the body responsible for appointments, promotions, discipline and judicial governance, and examines UN warnings concerning corruption safeguards, whistleblower protection and the absence of sufficiently independent mechanisms of accountability.
It also confronts one of the most disturbing figures in the material: 49.3% of Andorra’s prison population was reported as being in pre-trial detention, with an average duration cited in the podcast of 242 days. The central question is whether provisional detention, procedural delay and institutional weakness can transform the judicial process itself into a form of punishment before conviction.
The programme further examines the independence of lawyers, the chilling effect that criminal proceedings can have on human-rights defenders, the case of Vanessa Mendoza Cortés, and the need to preserve unresolved historical cases through an Archive of Judicial Memory capable of identifying recurring institutional patterns.
At the centre of the intervention is ANDORRA JUSTICE WATCH, whose message to international institutions is deliberately simple:
“We are not asking you to believe us. We are asking you to investigate.”
The appeal is directed to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, GRECO, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and CEPEJ, requesting international scrutiny, institutional engagement, objective judicial data and, where justified, direct examination of the situation in Andorra.
This is not presented as an attack on Andorra or its judges. The argument is the opposite: meaningful external scrutiny can protect judicial independence by ensuring that judges are able to decide cases without fear, dependency or retaliation.
Andorra can become a European model of transparency and judicial accountability. But first, the files must be opened to scrutiny.
Don’t believe it. Investigate.
