It appears that the mechanism used to the threat of “being
overwhelmed” by other judges, which is a form of “judicial
mobbing”. The fear that the judges have is that their
co-workers are capable of not renewing their contracts, in the
case of substitute judges, or accusing them of some crime,
including putting them in jail.
An example of the first case is a judge in Espluques del
Llobregat who was pressured into changing a resolution by a judge
who was Presidente de la Sección 14ª de la Audiencia
Provincial de Barcelona, Ilmo. Sr. D. Juan Poch Serra, who was
condemned many years later for obstruction of justice, according
to the sentence. An example of the second case is explained in a
deceased judge's book (Ilmo. Sr. D. Joaquín García
Lavernia). Another example is Remei TC's experience of being
falsely accused of a crime by a prosecutor (Accused
her of the crime of falsification, which she never committed, to
suspend her from work and salary with the intent of firing her).
Therefore the judges (and the prosecutors, and the judicial
secretaries, and other employees) follow the “suggestions”
of others, in spite of being “independent”.
Effectively, the “influencer” convinces a judge,
with a threat implicit or explicit, to emit an illegal and unjust
resolution, then later convinces the next judge (for example in
the appeals court) to do the same thing when the appeal arrives.
Meanwhile the prosecutors, who are supposed to guarantee the
legality of the process, ignore the whole thing with inexcusable
ignorance. The more levels up the judicial process, logically, the
harder it is to appeal. Plus, there are lengthly delays at the
higher levels. A case in the Supreme Court could take four years!
A famous British politician from the 19th century said
“Justice delayed is justice denied”.