Teresa Freixes
Professor of Constitutional Law at the Autonomous University of Barcelona
04/03/2019 La razón
ENGLISH
We are so accustomed to American films that many complain that in the "trial of the century" there is no emotion, that the Prosecutor's Office does not corner the accused and that the president of the Tribunal is excessively condescending with many of those who have been appearing before the Court, especially with secessionist politicians. With the commencement of the evidentiary phase, after the defendants had testified, the testimony of the witnesses has given rise to a kind of "change of direction". If the defendants accepted their right not to testify and not to confess guilt, even to issue considerations and political allegations, the witnesses, on the contrary, must declare obligatorily and under oath. That is why witnesses have not been able to hold political rallies or have been sanctioned when they have refused to testify. That is why Junqueras, as defendant, was able to make use of all the staging he wanted to give us while Tardà, as a witness, had to declare following the facts and in the terms set by President of the Court Marchena.
Also as witnesses declared the main politicians of the PP government, the former president, the former vice president, the former finance minister or of the Interior. They were interrogated about a set of actions that were aimed at replacing the constitutional, statutory and legally established order in Catalonia with another, regardless of the procedures legally provided for it. Their answers did not go into detail about what happened during their term and, even, they seemed unaware of facts that we have all seen or read about. Most of the time, they shielded themselves in that they had no operational command. Other politicians also set out positions on general issues, but little did they contribute on the details that will occupy the Tribunal's work from now on.
In this trial the mechanisms by which the independence or the establishment of the republic was sought are going to be criminally assessed: approval and attempt to apply disconnection laws suspended and then declared contrary to the Constitution by the TC; public disorders such as those that occurred in front of the Ministry of Economy, the Courts of Justice or the hotels where the Police were lodged; the alleged illegal "referendum" of the 1-O; de factoproclamation (not de jure) of the independence; or the presumed use of public funds, removing them irregularly despite the control carried out by the Treasury.
Now is when, really, you will enter into the contrasting examination of the facts. Those who were in charge of operatives of all kinds (police charges for example), who suffered the attacks whose violence is discussed (among them the court clerk who had to leave by the roof of an adjoining building in the registry to the Ministry of Economy), or those who intervened in the adoption of parliamentary resolutions, will have to declare. They are going to examine documents, videos, emails, invoices, recordings, one by one ... all kinds of evidence admitted nowadays by our Law of Criminal Procedure.
It is now when the probative value of what the file inquired by Judge Llarena and what can be provided from other courts of Barcelona that are inquiring other aspects of this cause will be appreciated. Based on the contrast between statements and evidence, the Court will be able to assess whether the proven facts are subsumed, or not, in the types of crimes for which the defendants have been prosecuted: rebellion, sedition and embezzlement.
0 comentarios:
Post a Comment