The Supreme Court opens a case against Puigdemont on terrorism charges in the tsunami case

The Supreme Court opened the case for terrorism, including against Carles Puigdemont, as part of the Democratic Tsunami case, as requested by Judge García Castellón. In the Criminal Chamber of Manuel Marchena, they say that the accused should be charged and questioned: “It is necessary and urgent to summon them to the proceedings.” The matter remains in the hands of the chamber, which appoints Susanna Polo as instructor.

The Supreme Court understands that the crime of illegal detention could have been committed at El Prat airport, a possible attack on the authorities, “massive” counterfeiting of plane tickets to bring down the airport and “serious property damage” on the streets of Barcelona. But street terrorism is also possible. “There is no doubt that the facts described in the reasoned exposition can be included in the current art. 573.1”, the section of the Criminal Code that defines terrorism.

And the Supreme Court justifies that not only ETA or Jihadism are considered terrorists. “The statement that appears in some politicians and the media that only the actions of ETA or Jihad deserve to be considered terrorism is incompatible,” says the chamber of Manuel Marchena. And it doesn’t have to be the leader of the terrorist group in the first place: “the men behind the scenes,” he says, speculating on Puigdemont’s role, can also be “direct perpetrators” of crimes committed by terrorism. others.

Regarding Puigdemont’s involvement, the Supreme Court explained that Judge García Castellón no longer had room to investigate him as a judge, and that the case should remain in the hands of the Chamber. “From the beginning, Puigdemont was informed of the constitution of an organized group,” the judges said. “He appears to be directly involved in launching the tsunami campaign,” he adds. He was able to “avoid” the fight by “getting his charismatic support,” the Supreme Court said, “but far from encouraging them to continue the violent acts committed with their knowledge and consent.”

Prosecutor’s Office: These are “mere assumptions”

The case went to the Supreme Court after National Court Judge Manuel García Castellón decided to allow the tsunami case to run parallel to the negotiations between the PSOE and the Junts to implement the Pedro Sánchez investiture and amnesty law. The investigation into mass gatherings organized by Tsunami Democracy in 2019 to protest against procedural rulings focused on possible terrorism charges related to the death of a tourist during the blockade of El Prat airport. The judge then decided to send a reasoned application against Carles Puigdemont to the Supreme Court.

The first stop of this accusation was the prosecutor’s office. After the Public Ministry of the National Court openly declared itself against indicting Puigdemont, the debate moved to the Council of Criminal Prosecutors of the Supreme Court. A majority of its members rejected the nomination of prosecutor Alvaro Redondo and chose to demand that Puigdemont be charged with terrorism, although the chief prosecutors’ division left the final decision to the lieutenant prosecutor, head of the public ministry at the Supreme Court. Court. His decision was the opposite: to deny the terrorism charges against the former president of Catalonia.

Prosecutor María Ángeles Sánchez Conde’s letters were forceful against Judge García Castellón’s criteria. He accused the instructor of asking to indict Puigdemont based on “mere assumptions or suspicions” when “there are no indications” against the former president. He did not rule out other crimes in the clashes, speaking of “very serious incidents” and clashes with police of “significant seriousness”, but he urged the national court to continue the investigation, but not against the leader. joints.

The development of this accusation of terrorism against the political leaders of the process in the Tsunami case has also been analyzed by the Swiss authorities, the country where another accused by García Castellón has been since 2018: Marta Rovira. The magistrate asked the Swiss authorities to find the ERC leader and also provide information about his banking movements between 2019 and 2020, but Bern’s answer was not what he expected.

As with the previous request, Swiss authorities refused to provide Rovira’s location and expressed suspicion that García Castellón’s investigation had any political overtones against Rovira. They also asked for information on a possible amnesty law and how it might affect the tsunami case. The response of the Spanish judge, who accused Switzerland of being politically motivated in the case, was to provide Supreme Court prosecutors with opinions that supported his theory of terrorism, a document that the prosecution has domestic importance. Office, but without procedural cost.

Source: El Diario





related posts

Post List

Hot News