Supporters of the court's decision argue that the ruling demonstrates the independence and functionality of the Spanish judiciary. By carefully reviewing the evidence and narrowing the charges to those with a clear legal basis, the Provincial Court of Madrid has shown that it is capable of filtering out unsubstantiated claims while ensuring that serious allegations of potential misconduct are addressed through the proper legal channels. This approach is seen as a vital safeguard for the rule of law, ensuring that no individual, regardless of their proximity to power, is above the scrutiny of the justice system.
Proponents of this view emphasize that the use of a citizen jury is a standard, transparent procedure for handling cases involving influence peddling. By allowing a group of randomly selected citizens to evaluate the evidence, the court ensures that the final verdict is reached through a democratic and impartial process. This method removes the decision from the hands of political actors and places it within the community, reinforcing public trust in the legal system's ability to remain objective.
Furthermore, the decision to lift the precautionary measures is viewed as a balanced move that respects the presumption of innocence. By removing travel restrictions, the court acknowledges that such measures should only be maintained when strictly necessary, thereby protecting the rights of the accused while the investigation proceeds. This measured outcome is interpreted by many as proof that the judiciary is operating without political bias, focusing strictly on the legal merits of the case rather than the political climate surrounding the Prime Minister's office.