Post by nijhumnishita033 on Jan 11, 2024 14:32:44 GMT 5.5
He observes that a judge in these circumstances cannot be expected to accompany the plaintiff (Photo: E&J) But, furthermore, - the Chamber continues - it is neither natural nor expected that a judge , before whom the litigation is pending, would request that the plaintiff in that process collaborate with him in a unique study of gender violence caused , through the minor children, by the parent who does not have custody. “Least of all, that he accepted for this collaboration to be in contact with the youngest daughter of the litigating parents, directly affected by the definitive measures adopted in the process. Or with the maternal grandparents, interested, naturally, in the situation in which her daughter will be left,” the court emphasizes.
Therefore, the Chamber concludes that it was not the cause or motive invoked by him that led him to interact with the plaintiff on June 5, 6 and 7, 2018 and also concludes that “given the displays of affection Phone Number Data observed on June 5 and given the attitude of him and the plaintiff reflected in the photograph taken on May 24, 2018, of intense joy on both sides, that on this day a relationship of affection already existed between them , with an intensity no less than that It is typical of a relationship of intimate friendship.” He adds that it says nothing against this that the sanctioned judge abstained of his own free will on June 14 of that year , since that day he already knew, not the content of the private detective's report, but that the defendant in that litigation had commissioned an investigation into his ex-partner that involved observing her behavior.
He indicates that “nor does it say anything against, due to the attitude shown in the photograph of May 24, that it cannot be considered proven that it was the sanctioned judge who invited….. to go with him to the institutional event held in the Command of the Civil Guard of Ávila”. The Chamber rejects that the disciplinary sanction is disproportionate , as the appellant maintains, because in this case and due to its distinctive notes, “the knowingly unobserved duty of abstention was caused by an emotional relationship whose mere suspicion was apt to draw the attention of the general .
Therefore, the Chamber concludes that it was not the cause or motive invoked by him that led him to interact with the plaintiff on June 5, 6 and 7, 2018 and also concludes that “given the displays of affection Phone Number Data observed on June 5 and given the attitude of him and the plaintiff reflected in the photograph taken on May 24, 2018, of intense joy on both sides, that on this day a relationship of affection already existed between them , with an intensity no less than that It is typical of a relationship of intimate friendship.” He adds that it says nothing against this that the sanctioned judge abstained of his own free will on June 14 of that year , since that day he already knew, not the content of the private detective's report, but that the defendant in that litigation had commissioned an investigation into his ex-partner that involved observing her behavior.
He indicates that “nor does it say anything against, due to the attitude shown in the photograph of May 24, that it cannot be considered proven that it was the sanctioned judge who invited….. to go with him to the institutional event held in the Command of the Civil Guard of Ávila”. The Chamber rejects that the disciplinary sanction is disproportionate , as the appellant maintains, because in this case and due to its distinctive notes, “the knowingly unobserved duty of abstention was caused by an emotional relationship whose mere suspicion was apt to draw the attention of the general .