Barcelona (EFE).- The former vice president of the Generalitat Oriol Junqueras (ERC) has asked the Supreme Court to acquit him of the crimes of sedition and embezzlement in the process, in accordance with the “political consensus” that has given rise to the reform of the Penal Code, and opposes its replacement by that of public disorder.

The lawyers for Junqueras, the former president of Parliament Carme Forcadell and the former ministers Raül Romeva and Dolors Bassa have presented their briefs to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, which must review the sentence that sentenced them to up to 13 years in prison in light of the legal reforms promoted by the Government.

The four leaders were released from prison after the government partially pardoned their prison sentence, but after the legal reform they are asking that all the sentences imposed in the sentence be revoked, including those of disqualification, which in the case of Junqueras will not be liquidated. until the year 2030.

In their writings, the lawyers Andreu Van Den Eynde and Olga Arderiu argue that the conviction for sedition should be revoked, because the “will” of the legislator has been to repeal that crime in order to bring the Spanish Criminal Code in line with European standards.

On 1-O, in no form of embezzlement

They also ask that they be acquitted of embezzlement and, for this, they argue that in the expenses of the 1-O referendum there was neither a profit motive nor a diversion of funds to uses other than those foreseen, for which reason the facts declared proven in the sentence They do not fit into “any of the modalities in force” in the reform of the Penal Code.

In this sense, the lawyers recall that the judgment of the Supreme Court “understood as an unfair administration of public assets” the expenses destined to a “public referendum demanded by the electorate and followed by a significant part of it, without proving the for-profit competition.”

For the defenses, the facts judged by the Supreme Court have no place in the crime of embezzlement defined in the penal reforms: “they were not discreet, but solemnly proclaimed, nor did they seem aimed at the convicted persons obtaining a certain particular benefit, but precisely the satisfaction of a political objective widely shared by a sector of the citizenry”.

In addition, the lawyers argue in their writings that the new crime of diversion of funds cannot be applied to 1-O either, since the sentence itself describes the referendum as an “application of public funds for purposes prohibited by the Constitutional Court and in a manner some included actions of seizure, subtraction or appropriation of public property.

“The authentic interpretation of the law is obvious when the legislator states that he amends the criminal law to avoid equating the conduct of appropriation with the conduct of unfair administration of public assets,” the sentence redounds.

The repeal of sedition, the result of a political consensus

Regarding the crime of sedition, the writings of the ERC leaders maintain that its repeal is “the product of a majority political consensus embodied in a legislative reform that advocates the overcoming of atavistic criminal figures whose compatibility with the current social context is rejected.”

In the opinion of the defenses, the “explicit will” of the legislator has been to eliminate some criminal offenses that “on too many occasions (probably due to their lack of exhaustiveness and vagueness) include actions for the exercise of fundamental rights”, which could lead to a ” risk scenario of deterrence of its legitimate exercise, which has come to be called the ‘chilling effect’”.

Likewise, for the defense of the republican leaders of the procés, the facts that were considered proven in the sentence as sedition cannot be punished as disorders, since those convicted did not make calls to commit disturbances nor can their role be understood as an “action group” aimed at violating public order with violence and intimidation.

In the case of Forcadell, they add, if she is convicted of disorderly conduct, her rights to assembly and demonstration, which are protected by article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, would be violated.

The writings emphasize that the Supreme Court ruling already excluded the crime of public disorder when it described the events as a “riot uprising” to prevent “the effectiveness of the laws” or compliance with judicial decisions, without framing them in “violent disturbances.”

The procés does not fit into public disorders

In this sense, they insist that this is the thesis brandished by the Supreme Court investigating judge Pablo Llarena himself in the new indictment issued against the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and the former ex-consellers who fled, in which he rules out that 1-O fits in crimes against public order.

“Neither does the sentence include nor could it include that the convicted incited the commission of violent acts such as those provided for” by the current article of the Penal Code, the lawyers specify.

The writings also highlight that none of the accusations -neither the Prosecutor’s Office, nor the State Attorney’s Office nor the popular accusation exercised by Vox- described 1-O as a crime of public disorder at any moment of the criminal process, for which reason the defendants could not defend against him.

“Not only was there not a qualification for other crimes, such as the crime of public disorder, but it was not even made as an alternative or subsidiary qualification or was introduced into the debate at any time,” they point out.

[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]
[NEW POP]

By bfrpx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

}