CATALONIA
La utilització perversa del procés penal https://t.co/HbdYfipYuD vía @ARAopinio ~~
The perverse use of the criminal process
It is not the pursuit of the
crime really committed what is intended, but the liquidation of a
political option
JAVIER PÉREZ ROYO Professor of constitutional law of
the University of Seville
The crime of rebellion is a crime that is obvious, its existence must not be demonstrated. Or there has been a "public uprising and violent" or has not occurred. No investigation is necessary to certify the existence of the criminal act.
When it is given, an investigation is necessary to know why it was not
anticipated with the necessary advance that the uprising could occur,
which would have allowed them to take the necessary measures to avoid
it.
If the Galaxy and related operations were properly investigated in
1980, it is more than likely that the "public and violent uprising"
could have been avoided on February 23, 1981. In the same way that The
"civil plot" of this uprising should have been investigated to find out
how it could have been produced. But that on February 23, 1981, a "public and violent uprising" occurred, it did not have to be demonstrated.
Where is the "public and violent uprising" in the conduct of the people
included in the order of processing that was issued yesterday, March
23, Judge Pablo Llarena?
How is it possible that in a process that has been developed literally
in the eyes of everyone - because it has been relayed through the media
beyond our borders -, nobody has warned that there has been a "rise
public and violent? It was not necessary to explain to anyone, either inside or outside Spain, that the 23-F had taken place.
And if Lieutenant Colonel Tejero had fled to any European country, the
order that the Spanish judge had taken was immediately arrested and made
available to justice.
He would not have had to withdraw the euroorder dictated by Judge
Carmen Lamela, nor would he have had to stop attending the requirement
of the attorney general so that a new order could be taken against
Carles Puigdemont when he traveled to Denmark. Why does this, which is evident when a crime of rebellion occurs, is not it in the case of the Process?
Why is there not, in the eighty pages on which the interlocutory
appears, nor does a single precise indication of a conduct that can be
described as "violent uprising"?
All the interlocutors are full of hypothetical judgments about the
violence that could have ended up generating from the conduct of the
prosecuted ones. But at no time does the conduct of any of them be described as violent. There is no specific imputation of violent uprising with respect to any of them.
It is being described as constitutives of the crime of rebellion behaviors that want to destroy politically. There is political persecution disguised as criminal instruction
No regard to anyone.
The relation that contains the interlocutor of all the concentrations
that took place in different electoral schools so that the citizens
could vote the 1-O is the best proof than I say.
In none of them, as they have been gathered in the reports drafted by
the agents of the National Police or the Civil Guard, in no way went
beyond the passive resistance. The same police officers and guards certify that there has been no violent uprising of any kind.
There is no doubt that the Criminal Proceedings have occurred in the Process. But in no case did the crime of rebellion take place.
Consequently, in the instructional task of Judge Pablo Llarena
regarding the crime of rebellion, there is an appearance of criminal
instruction, but it is only an appearance. The political burden denatures the instructional activity.
No conduct is being pursued so that they are constitutive of the crime
of rebellion, but is being described as constitutives of the crime of
rebellion behaviors that want to destroy politically. There is political persecution disguised as criminal instruction.
We are therefore facing a perverse use of the criminal process.
In the interlocutory, the instructional judge describes in detail the
political behavior of Parliament, the Government, the ANC and Omnium,
and reports how this behavior has been unconstitutionally declared
repeatedly by the Constitutional Court. He also describes the repeated disobedience of the Catalan authorities to the decisions of the Constitutional Court. But nothing he describes constitutes "violent uprising" of any kind.
The interlocutory is a paradigmatic example of the transformation of a criminal process into a political process.
It is not the pursuit of the crime really committed what is intended,
but seeks the liquidation of a political option by attributing a crime
that only exists in the imagination of the judge.
