Rules out terrorism and points to serious public disorder, falsification of documents, coercion and damage
The prosecutor of the Supreme Court (TS) Álvaro Redondo has concluded that at this time there are no “rational indications of criminality” against the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont that justify an investigation against him for ‘Tsunami Democràtic’, considering that they are “too open”, while pointing out that “the criminal offense of terrorism does not apply”, which is why he asks to continue investigating.
Redondo thus 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 parliamentary deputy Rubén Wagensberg – both of whom were qualified – and the general secretary of ERC, Marta Rovira, among other people, for alleged crimes of terrorism due to the riots that occurred in the fall of 2019 as a reaction to the ‘procés’ sentence.
The prosecutor agrees that, indeed, the TS is “competent to hear, where appropriate, the actions provisionally attributed to the accused gentlemen”, but then points out that “it is appropriate to indicate to the instructor that he must continue the investigations, since there are no “rational indications of criminality at this procedural moment, which justify the elevation of the case to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, in relation to the aforementioned gentlemen.”
“The evidence taken into account by the instructor, in order to present the reasoned exposition, are too open to be able to affirm that the procedural situation exists that would reasonably allow the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction,” says Redondo in a report by 69 pages dated January 30, to which Europa Press has had access.
Thus, he makes a compilation of the evidence that García Castellón provided against Puigdemont, such as his conversations with a businessman where “a direct reference is made to the Tsunami Democràtic platform as a tool for achieving independence”; others of his Chief of Staff, Josep Lluis Alay, with another businessman;, the meetings in Geneva of parties and sovereigntist entities with the presence of the president; or his “direct push” to social media campaigns.
Regarding the legal classification of the facts, Redondo believes that “the criminal type of terrorism does not apply,” explaining that for this there must be “the commission of a serious crime against physical or moral integrity, or against freedom, carried out carried out to seriously disturb the public peace”.
The prosecutor recalls that the reasoned statement refers to “the confinement of the air traffic controllers in the control tower of the Barcelona airport (El Prat), preventing them from leaving the building, as well as the blocking of passengers in the airport itself, by which closure of exits, as possible terrorist actions”.
For Redondo, although these actions “undoubtedly affect the Human Right of freedom and moral integrity, they cannot be considered as constituting an illegal detention, but in any case a crime of coercion”, hence he discards the terrorist thesis. .
“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.
The report 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”, it does not “there was “violence or intimidation of voters” to get them to vote or make it difficult for them to enter and exit the polling stations, nor a serious disturbance of the electoral act.”
DISORDER, FALSEHOOD, COACTION AND DAMAGES
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.
And this is because it is understood that these events represented an alteration of public peace, which “consists of the set of external conditions that allow the normal development of citizen coexistence, the order of the community and, ultimately, the observance of the rules that “They facilitate this coexistence and, therefore, allow the exercise of people’s fundamental rights.”
In any case, he emphasizes that this is a provisional assessment, “without prejudice to the possible criminal liability that, as a result of the ongoing investigation, could be attributed to any person, in relation to the specific injuries, some of them serious, caused in the context of the assault or the aforementioned occupations and demonstrations”.
At this point he emphasizes, however, that “none of said injuries can be objectively attributed to the accused gentlemen.” Specifically, he refers to the death by heart attack of a French tourist on October 14, 2019 during the occupation of El Prat. In his opinion, “it cannot ‘prima facie’ be attributed to the actions of the protesters” because “it appears linked to a chronic heart disease.”
To the crime of aggravated public disorder, Redondo adds in an indicative manner another continuous crime of forgery in a commercial document, for the falsification of plane tickets and boarding passes, and another of damages caused to the affected facilities.
It should be remembered that the report is not yet final because it must be submitted to the examination of the board of criminal prosecutors of the TS, something that is scheduled for next Tuesday. In the event that there are opposing criteria, that of the majority will prevail, which could imply that another prosecutor is appointed or that Redondo agrees to write another report. The tax sources consulted by Europa Press state that there are disparate opinions.
Once the final report of the Supreme Court Prosecutor’s Office has been issued, Judge Juan Ramón Berdugo – as rapporteur on the matter – will be in charge of proposing to the Criminal Chamber of the high court whether its admission is appropriate or not.
