José María Brunet,
Almost a year
and a half after the events, the Supreme
Court (TS) is prepared to judge from next Tuesday the events that occurred in Catalonia in September and
October 2017, for which nine independence leaders are accused of the crime of rebellion - aggravated in six
cases by that of embezzlement-,
while three others are accused for this criminal type and that of disobedience.
The trial and
sentence probably represent for this court one of the most important challenges
it has faced since the restoration of democracy. There is hardly any jurisprudence on the crime of rebellion, for which the
prosecutor asks the defendant who had the greatest responsibility of
government, the former vice-president Oriol
Junqueras, a total of 25 years in prison.
The Supreme Court wants the
hearing to end before the beginning of the May 26 election campaign
Historical trial. The oral
hearing will be followed, inside and outside of Spain, with the greatest
attention, as the process of historical relevance that it is. And not only
because of its importance for Spanish political life, but as a reflection of
the complex problem that Europe is experiencing on a broader scale, in a
scenario in which social and territorial tensions seek solutions beyond the
courts of justice, through the improvement of democratic systems and
representation. Undoubtedly, this set of factors explains that a total of 600
journalists from 150 media, between Spaniards and foreigners, are accredited to
follow the trial.
The historical
account of the trial that is now going to be substantiated began with the
filing of the lawsuit brought by the ex-prosecutor general José Manuel Maza,
based on the controversial plenary session held by the Parliament on September
6 and 7, 2017.
The crime of rebellion. The text was
ready to be presented if and when the unilateral declaration of independence
(DUI) would happen to come, as was the case later on. Hence, this trial has
always been seen as the response of the State to the unilateral path finally
chosen by the independence forces. The accusation of rebellion made it easier
for defendants to be removed from public office.
The long phase of provisional
detention gives a chance to the defenses to support the thesis of ideological
persecution
To this end,
the defendants were subjected to article 384 bis of the Criminal Code, which
provides for the suspension of such tasks when there is an indictment for
rebellion and unconditional imprisonment has been issued, as was the case.
Perhaps because of her knowledge of this legal forecast, the then Vice
President of the Government, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, said from the
beginning of this criminal case that after the DUI the independence movement
had been "decapitated".
But in this way
a new debate was opened, around the possible damage to the political rights of
the accused who were also elected members of the Parliament in the elections of
21-D of 2017. These rights, it was alleged, should remain intact because of the
presumption of innocence maintained by the defendants, in the absence of any
trial and sentence.
Political rights. Hence the
tension between the Supreme Court and the Parliament each time an investiture
of a new president of the Generalitat was attempted. To this designation were candidates
the former president Carles Puigdemont, from his residence in Waterloo, and the
former minister Jordi Turull and the former president of the ANC, Jordi
Sànchez, prisoners in this case. None prospered.
The Constitutional Court (TC) closed the path. In parallel, different rulings of the courts in Belgium, Scotland and Germany denied the delivery to Spain of former members of the Government. Such was the case of Puigdemont himself, arrested last March in northern Germany when he was returning from a conference in Finland. On Tuesday he will be in Germany again. In a seat of the Catalan Government without anyone being able to prevent it.
The judges say that ideas are not
sanctioned and remind that the Government remains in the hands of sovereignty
leaders
Violence. The High
Court of Schleswig-Holstein twice denied the delivery of the former president,
questioning in fact the accusation of rebellion, which requires the existence
of an uprising carried out with violence for, among other possible purposes,
"declaring the independence of a part of the national territory". The
German magistrates considered that the mobilizations registered in Catalonia
did not have enough entity to endanger the stability of the political system
and the Spanish institutions. Not even the massive blockade of the delegation
that registered the headquarters of the Department of Economy in Barcelona on
September 20 seemed sufficient to them.
Setback to the Supreme Court. The decision
of the judges of Schleswig-Holstein was a blow to the Supreme Court and the
Prosecutor's Office. The judge in charge of the investigation of the case, Pablo
Llarena, decided to withdraw the European Arrest Warrant against Puigdemont and
the former members of his Government who had decided to leave Spain. The former
president remained as defendant in absentia, and for that reason it was
rejected months thereafter his declaration in the trial by videoconference in
another condition, that of a witness.
The successive decisions
of European judicial authorities became, in short, a point of support for the
defenses. Above all, given the prospect that at the end of this long trial it
will be the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which will say the last word
on the 1-O.
European justice. These
expectations grew in view of the evolution of the doctrine of the Strasbourg
Court itself on pre-trial detention. Especially in the case of Demirtas, a
Kurdish member of Parliament in prison for more than two years, based on a trial
that the ECHR considered due to the willingness of the Turkish authorities to
"suffocate the debate and the political game".
This resolution
motivated the expansion of the appeals filed by the members of Parliament in
prison with the Constitutional Court (TC). And it opened a gap in this
institution, whose magistrates were divided during the debate they had about
the challenge presented by Junqueras against his stay in prison and his
suspension as a member of Parliament.
Ideology and law. Finally, the
Constitutional Court left the appeal on the table, without resolving it,
justifying its position in the complexity of the case. This gave the Supreme
Court time to explain why it did not apply the Demirtas case ruling to
prisoners of the 1-O case. Covered in the silence of the TC on the merits of
the case, the Chamber of Prosecution issued a ruling in which it explained that
in Case 1-O there has never been an ideological persecution or a willingness to
wrestle the political debate. It was based on the fact that the Government
continues today in the hands of pro-independence parties, which would prove
that this cause is not brought forward just to stifle political options, with
the particularity that the Catalan authorities are part of the institutional
framework of the Spanish State and represent it.
Calendar and elections. Once the oral
hearing has been opened, the will of the Supreme Court is for the hearing to
end before the electoral campaign for the May 26 elections. If necessary, it
will speed up the march. The sentence is expected for July.
https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20190210/46324210440/juicio-proces-claves-supremo-lideres-independentistas.html
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment