The Criminal Chamber of supreme has dictated a car in which he rebates German court and defends that re was violence in procés that can fit in crime of rebellion. The magistrates ratify existence of evidence of a crime of rebellion and reject arguments of German judges who are studying Euroorden against Carles Puigdemont. In addition, y recall that prosecution's presentation of complaint has left door open for facts to be considered sedition, a possibility that is still in force, according to High Court.More information
- Llarena to Germany: "The referendum was a plundering of funds"
- Llarena compares rebellion of procés with coup d'etat of 23-F
In a car notified this Tuesday, appeals room of supreme rejects appeal presented by Jordi Sànchez against decision of Judge Paul Llarena last March 9 not to let him go to investiture plenary convened for 12th of that month. In its resolution, first dictated by room after knowing that German court which decides on extradition of Puigdemont does not consider that re is a crime of rebellion, judges reject arguments of judges of that country and warn that "it is not reasonable" To compare, as y have done, secessionist process within an EU country, "with a settled democracy", with riots organized against enlargement of Francfourt airport.
In our case, it was not about extending one of slopes of El prat de Llobregat Airport and that this would generate protest of thousands of protesters to prevent it. What was really happening here was that after more than two years dedicated to laminating state and regional legal system, and to oppose fulfillment of basic judgements of Constitutional Court, secessionist process was completed within Of a European Union country, with a settled democracy, putting masses on street to vote in an unconstitutional referendum opposing legitimate force of state that protected some alleged polling schools, "adds car.
Rebellion because he had power
The room analyses in car nature of crime of rebellion, which is regulated in Offences against Constitution, and affirms that "in this case it seems that, at least indiciariamente, national sovereignty and territorial unity of Spanish nation have been attacked ( Articles 1 and 2 of Constitution ". The difference with case that sets German court as a precedent is, according to Spanish judges, that in Catalan case main responsible for facts already had power. "It is not a rebellion of a crowd of people, more or less organized against Spanish state to take ir centers of power", but people who took initiative were "subjects who occupied officially and legitimately constitutional powers and Legally established in an autonomous community, "warns room, formed by judges Miguel Colmenero, Francisco Monterde and Alberto Jorge Barreiro.
To achieve its goal, according to supreme, instead of using violence to take central power of state, those responsible for procés tried to disconnect or rend Spanish state autonomous institutions whose powers exerted. For this y had legal means that had been provided by Constitution and Statute of autonomy through a legitimate election, "legal instruments that ended up using for purposes totally contrary to those disposed by rules that legitimized ir function. "
"In such a context, it is clear that physical violence was a second place, because it was only necessary to use it at some crossroads or traffic on road line that had been marked. Especially to carry out referendum of independence, since it was an essential step in its journey for purpose of secession, and having to materialize massively and in public centers were going to meet opposition of outside Legitimate state, "explains car.
The judges emphasize on 1-or that Spanish government displaced to Catalonia some 6,000 agents who were obliged to fill in judgments and rulings of Constitutional Court, prohibiting declaration of a referendum declared Unconstitutional. However, despite all warnings from courts, " protagonists of Procés continued ir roadmap and induced some two million people to go outside to vote illegally." The result was that, as it was "totally predictable and inevitable," re was violence and more than a hundred physical clashes between people who went to vote and police.
The car analyzes intensity of violence and valuation of this aspect that German court of which depends delivery of Puigdemont and estimated that this degree of violence was not enough for Spanish government had been forced to Surrender to insurgents ' demands by not being enough to bend will of state. "If a large number of policemen had intervened it is very likely that everything would end in a massacre and n it would be very feasible for result of Euroorden to be very different," warn judges.
The Spanish magistrates are forcefully carrying against German judges. In addition to considering "unreasonable" to homologue what happened in separatist process with a revolt organized by enlargement of Francfourt airport, chamber questions story made in its writing by audience of Schleswig-Holstein. It warns that it draws attention to start with a hypotical example very appropriate to case of Catalonia, as is to ask what would happen in Germany if President of a land incurred in a conduct like that perpetrated in Catalonia, "but few lines abandons that Discourse without delving into it and slides suddenly towards so-called factual of airport track, fleeing thus from swampy example that was so adequate and pertinent ".
"The hypotical assumption of president of land gave a lot of yes, but most likely in case that were followed in his analysis argument rules of Discourse of communicative rationality, its outcome would end in concession of Euroorden," says Car.
The supreme has no doubt that if what happened in Spain occurred in a land of Germany "with same factors of evolution, time and result", it would not legally "with a purely symbolic sentence".
The chamber focuses its argument on defending existence of crime of rebellion, but recalls that, in any case, prosecution left door open in its complaint that, in event that element of violence was not sufficiently noted, it To summarize conduct of subjects investigated in penal type of sedition.