The appointment comes preceded by the controversy over the discrepancies over the terrorist thesis in ‘Tsunami Democràtic’
MADRID, 5 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The board of criminal prosecutors of the Supreme Court (TS) will meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. to study the report of prosecutor Álvaro Redondo where he concludes that there is not enough evidence to charge the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont for ‘Democratic Tsunami’, al time that rules out that the facts investigated in this case constitute terrorism crimes.
The ordinary meeting, which is held weekly, will have around fifteen prosecutors, among whom will be the ‘procés’ prosecutors Fidel Cadena, Javier Zaragoza and Consuelo Madrigal. Redondo will defend his proposal and, if the majority agrees, the report will be approved. On the other hand, if his colleagues think differently, a new text will have to be written, which can be entrusted to another prosecutor or left in the hands of Redondo himself.
The tax sources consulted by Europa Press predict that it will be a tense meeting, as several prosecutors have already anticipated that they disagree with the conclusions reached by Redondo when they understand that there was terrorism in the actions allegedly orchestrated by Tsunami Democràtic in the fall of 2019 in protest. by the ‘procés’ ruling.
Redondo’s report, to which Europa Press has had access, responds to the reasoned statement that the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6, Manuel García Castellón, sent last November to the Supreme Court urging the high court to investigate Puigdemont, the deputy of the Parlament Rubén Wagensberg –both qualified– and the general secretary of ERC, Marta Rovira, among other people, for alleged terrorism crimes.
The prosecutor explains that, although the Supreme Court is the competent court to hear the criminal conduct attributed to Puigdemont and Wagensberg, in this case he believes that the investigating judge “must continue the investigations, as there are no rational indications of criminality at this time.” “that justify the elevation of the case to the Criminal Chamber of the TS in relation to the aforementioned gentlemen”. In his opinion, the evidence collected “turns out to be too open.”
Specifically, it compiles the evidence provided by García Castellón against Puigdemont, such as his conversations with a businessman where “a direct reference is made to Tsunami Democràtic as a tool for achieving independence”; others from his Chief of Staff, Josep Lluis Alay, with another businessman; the meetings in Geneva of parties and sovereigntist entities with the presence of the then president; or his “direct push” to social media campaigns.
On the other hand, Redondo stops at the legal analysis of the facts presented by the judge of the National Court (AN) to conclude that “the criminal type of terrorism does not apply”, explaining that for this there must be “the commission of a crime serious attack against physical or moral integrity, or against freedom, carried out to seriously disturb public peace”, circumstances that are not appreciated in ‘Tsunami Democràtic’.
It also rules out the electoral crime pointed out by García Castellón because, although “cultural, political and festive activities were carried out in all the cities, towns and neighborhoods of the territory of the Catalan community, thereby attempting to interfere in the electoral process”, there was no “violence or intimidation of voters” to get them to vote or hinder their entry and exit from the polling stations, nor a serious disturbance of the electoral act.”
On the other hand, the prosecutor indicates that the occupation of the Prat airport, the blockade of highways, the disturbances caused during the general strike called by Tsunami Democràtic, the interruption of a soccer match and the demonstrations held “are indicatively constitutive of many other crimes of serious public disorder.
To all of this, Redondo adds in an indicative manner another series of forgery in a commercial document, due to the falsification of plane tickets and boarding passes, and another of damages caused to the affected facilities.
The classification of the events as terrorist has been surrounded by controversy from the first moment. Thus, while García Castellón has supported the terrorist thesis since the beginning of the investigations, the prosecutor of the case in the AN, Miguel Ángel Carballo, believes that they only constitute aggravated public disorders, a hypothesis to which Redondo now joins, no. without controversy due to the existence of two contradictory texts.
As Redondo himself explained in a statement, on January 24, one day after García Castellón’s reasoned exposition fell into his hands in turn of distribution, he prepared “a first internal draft, as a working document, without the character of a document procedural”.
Fiscal sources explain to Europa Press that this “draft” was based on a quick study of the story made by the ‘Tsunami Democràtic’ instructor, from which Redondo understood that the Prat air traffic controllers were trapped due to the disturbances unleashed by the platform. independence. In this scenario, the prosecutor reasoned that it could be an illegal detention, sufficient basis to point to terrorism crimes.
However, after a “deep and exhaustive study of the complex facts” of the reasoned exposition, the prosecutor warned that in reality the air traffic controllers were able to leave, the main problem being that those who arrived before the start of a new work shift did not They were able to enter, so he considered that there could no longer be talk of illegal detention or, consequently, of terrorism.
For this reason, in its report it states that, although the “confinement” of the air traffic controllers and the blocking of passengers in the airport itself, due to the closure of the exits “without a doubt affect the Human Right of freedom and moral integrity, they do not can be considered as constituting an illegal detention, but in any case a crime of coercion”.
“Illegal detention is not verified, since this criminal figure requires that the subjective element encompasses the specific intention of imprisoning the injured party. If this is not the case, the only possible legal classification is that of a crime of coercion,” he elaborates.
With this second idea, he prepared the report that will be debated this Tuesday. On January 30, he shared it with the State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, who “verbally acknowledged” it, without giving him “any instructions.” He also did not consider it necessary to receive, “as I offered, and it was totally appropriate, even a copy of said draft,” Redondo relates in his statement.
“That same Tuesday morning, before 10:00 a.m., I informed some colleagues, on the occasion of the ordinary weekly meeting of the criminal section of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office, in which I have been a member for 20 years, informally, since the issue was not on the agenda, that my legal impression did not coincide with that of the investigating magistrate of the National Court on said point,” he adds.
For his part, the State Attorney General has issued his own statement to “flatly” deny the “information that claims that he has influenced the decision of the aforementioned prosecutor.”
It should be remembered that, once the final report of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office has been issued, it will be submitted to the Criminal Chamber of the high court, where Judge Juan Ramón Berdugo will be in charge of studying the matter and then argue before the other judges if appropriate. or not giving effect to the reasoned exposition signed by García Castellón.
