Prosecution denies Supreme Court is investigating Puigdemont, says Garcia Castelloni based on ‘assumptions’

The prosecution’s final decision is at odds with the Supreme Court, which is investigating Carles Puigdemont in the Tsunami Democracy case. A report by the High Court’s lieutenant prosecutor, Ángeles Sánchez Conde, said there were “no indications” of involvement by the former president of the Generalitat in the founding or planning of the platform that sparked protests against the sentence. process in 2019. And believes that the Judge of the National Court, Manuel García Castellón, is based on “mere assumptions or suspicions” when he attributes crimes such as terrorism.

In a strong report, Sánchez Conde assesses that the facts that García Castellón refers to in the substantiated statement in which he asked Puigdemont to be charged do not allow him to withdraw his participation in the platform and, on the contrary, “exclude” his participation. He also does not see criminal evidence against the other defendant, the member of parliament, Ruben Wagensberg. Accordingly, he suggests that the case be returned to the national court so that the instructor can complete the investigation.

The final conclusion presented by the prosecutor’s office contradicts the thesis defended by the majority of criminal prosecutors of the Supreme Court, who voted at the session held on February 6 to investigate the former president, who has been in Belgium since 2017. And to do so for the alleged crime of terrorism. Those prosecutors allege that Puigdemont served as the “absolute leader” of the demonstration, in which events occurred that “perfectly fit the crime of terrorism.”

At that meeting, a presentation prepared by prosecutor Alvaro Redondo, which ruled out the crime of terrorism and indicting Puigdemont, was rejected. the day before the world released information accusing Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz of influencing the reversal of an original report calling for the former president to be investigated for terrorism. Both Redondo and Garcia Ortiz deny this.

However, given that the two heads of the section – prosecutors Fidel Cadena, who supported the promotion of terrorism investigations; and Joaquín Sánchez-Coviza, who was against – on February 6, different criteria were maintained at that meeting, Article 24 of the organic statute of the Prosecutor’s Office was activated. This article stipulates that when there is a discrepancy between superiors, the hierarchical superior has the last word, which in this case is the aforementioned Sánchez-Conde, the “number two” of the State Attorney General.

The final decision is in line with the criteria maintained by the prosecutor of the case, Miguel Angel Carballo, who in several writings has ruled out the presence of acts of a “terrorist nature” in the melee and denied his involvement. the former president. The Sánchez Conde report said that the mobilization prompted by the tsunami had “very serious incidents” of confrontations with the police of “significant severity” in which “injuries and serious damage” had been caused, which could be criminalized.

However, the lieutenant prosecutor confirms that the reasoned statement in which García Castellón requested that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court take over the investigation of the two defendants was not preceded by “sufficient investigation” to prove that Tsunami Democratic is an organization that aims to “subvert the constitutional order.” or to “destabilize” the functioning of institutions or economic structures. Since the reform of the penal code agreed by the PP and PSOE in 2015, the presence of these elements supports their consideration as terrorist offenses without the presence of armed violence.

ADue to 2019, it was reactivated by amnesty

Judge García Castellón spent four years investigating possible terrorist crimes in the 2019 riots. Last November, to coincide with amnesty talks, a judge reopened the case and for the first time hinted at the alleged involvement. Former president, also ERC leader Marta Rovira and a dozen other people.

In the background is the final application of the amnesty law to Puigdemont and the rest of the people whom García Castellón considers the leaders of the protest. If the Supreme Court judges accept the thesis of the National Court Magistrate, the possibility of amnesty for the accused is uncertain. The legal concept of terrorism is the main discrepancy that exists between the PSOE and the Junts in the amnesty law, the elaboration of which is still blocked in Congress.

Thus, the magistrate tries to ascribe to Puigdemont the “position” of “unquestionable authority” in the tsunami, presumably indicating that until now both the Civil Guard and the National Court Prosecutor’s Office have considered irrelevant. In particular: a note about the meeting in Geneva in the agenda of the head of Puigdemont’s office Josep Luis Ale; A conversation between Ale and a journalist, in which it is suggested that Òmnium is “informing” Puigdemont about the tsunami presentation; The speech of the former president and businessman on protest actions; And Puigdemont’s “push” via Twitter to launch the Tsunami platform.

The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office now adds to this thesis about the groundlessness of the evidence, led by its lieutenant prosecutor. Sánchez Conde’s report states that “none” of the facts cited by the judge as evidence “allows a reasonable inference” to be made in the platform of his participation, “on the contrary, to exclude said intervention.”

For example, the instructor considers “particularly striking as an incriminating clue” the aforementioned conversation with the businessman in which Puigdemont states: “There could be trouble if someone is dead, no matter which side. It would be very difficult, and it would confirm what I’ve always said (and It made me decide to go into exile): We’re going to lose.” It’s a transformation that prosecutors say shows Puigdemont is concerned that the altercation could result in serious injury or death, and it’s a possibility that “he doesn’t want that to happen. .” However, for the judge, this is an assertion by which Puigdemont “seems to suggest that fatalities may have occurred.”

In fact, the judge establishes a terrorist connection based on facts such as the death of a French citizen of a heart attack during an attempt to land at El Prat or the serious injuries of police officers during the altercation. In this regard, the prosecutor’s office calls it “surprise” that someone who “expresses fear of the riots in Catalonia in October 2019 and voices against possible death can be criminally charged.”

The Prosecution’s criteria shall in no way be binding on the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. Judge Juan Ramon Berdugo will be the one to decide whether to recognize the substantiated presentation of the national court and open a terrorism case with Puigdemont as the main accused.

Source: El Diario

Leave a Reply

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