Judge Pablo Llarena has agreed to withdraw European arrest warrants issued against Carles Puigdemont, Antonio ate, Lluís Puig, Meritxell Serret and Clara Ponsatí, and that ir decision be communicated to Belgian authorities, so that y can leave collaboration without any effect requested in its day and m return of form. Llarena believes that European orders should be withdrawn because it is investigating a crime of a plurisubjetiva nature endowed with an inseparable legal unit, which requires a single reply to avoid contradictory responses.Learn More
- Can Puigdemont evade action of Spanish justice in Belgium?
- The judge Lamea dictates international arrest warrant for Puigdemont and or Exconsellrs
The judge recalls that European arrest warrant is an instrument of judicial collaboration and that once issued, investigating judge can at any time ponder convenience or opportunity of its maintenance, taking into account circumstances that They provide support in accordance with ir domestic law and effects that such arrest warrant may have on criminal proceedings being processed, in this case in Spain.
Llarena explains that search and capture and imprisonment cars and timely European arrest and delivery orders were issued on 3 November 2017.
The judge describes new scenario presented at this time. On one hand, after issuing orders, says Llarena, " investigated seem to have shown ir intention to return to Spain, in order to take possession and to exercise elective positions for whose elections have been recently presented."
On or hand, Llarena recalls that, once cause has accumulated, facts investigated provoke eventual commission of a crime of a plurisubjetiva nature: "After issue arrest warrants we contemplate, it has been defined that facts" They could have been perpetrated by concert of all those investigated and with an inseparable legal unit, that is, that purification of various criminal responsibilities must be carried out in a unified manner, orwise it could break "Continence of cause and lead process to contradictory and divergent responses for different participants".
According to magistrate, current maintenance of arrest warrants would not facilitate proper development of process "as it may be that requested State (pursuant to articles 3 to 5 of framework Decision) will partially deny execution of Arrest warrants, a restriction of title of imputation for those who are escaped is possible, which would hinder homogeneous response that justified accumulation of proceedings and would introduce defense disturbances for investigated That y are available to this investigating body, who could be investigated and prosecuted for all crimes that instructor contemplates, thus placing itself in "worse right" than those who are escaped.
Therefore, in current state of proceedings, magistrate considers it opportune, pondering interests at stake, to withdraw arrest warrants under analysis and to renounce request for collaboration that y behave. In addition, judge understands that this withdrawal does not generate any encumbrance to those affected by it "because, to extent that prosecuted opposed to execution by requested State Act of collaboration that we analyze, that is what this resolution gives m."