MADRID, 18 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The judge of the National Court Manuel García Castellón has rejected the appeal presented by the Prosecutor’s Office against his decision to send the case on ‘Democratic Tsunami’ to the Supreme Court to investigate the crime of terrorism in the case of former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont , to the general secretary of ERC Marta Rovira and ten other people while insisting on the terrorist nature of the events.
In an order, collected by Europa Press, the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 explains that the latest procedures carried out to date have allowed “to consolidate the initial hypothesis”, which classified the events as a crime of terrorism. All of this in this case in which the magistrate is investigating the riots supposedly orchestrated by the independence platform in response to the ‘procés’ ruling.
Thus, faced with the argument of the Prosecutor’s Office that there is no new evidence, the judge refers to the reasoned exposition that he sent to the Supreme Court in which he fully develops the documentation provided by the Mossos d’Esquadra in relation to the events that occurred in El Prat airport on October 14, 2019, where a French citizen died due to heart failure.
In the same way, the judge also mentions the letter sent to the L’Hopitalet de Llobregat court that initiated proceedings following that death, as well as the written appearances of several national police officers appearing as private prosecutors and who were injured in the incidents that occurred. They took place in Barcelona on October 18 of that same year.
The prosecutor, in his appeal for reform, also indicated that the reasoned statement had been presented when the Public Ministry had already appealed the order by which the judge agreed to direct the procedure against those investigated. On this issue, the judge explains that the filing of said appeal has no suspensive effects, which does not prevent him from continuing to process the procedure.
Likewise, the magistrate rejects the Public Ministry’s argument that the statement of reasons was agreed upon without foundation and without any circumstances having occurred to justify it. In this regard, García Castellón alludes to the more than one hundred pages of the statement of reasons “for the purposes” that the prosecutor “can enlighten himself on the reasons for it, so in no case can it be admitted, as stated in the appeal, which lacks foundation”.
The instructor, seeing the reform appeals of the Prosecutor’s Office both against the order by which it directed the case against those investigated and against the reasoned exposition, understands that “we must reflect on the singular fact of having to insist before the body whose mission is “promote the action of justice in defense of legality, on the forcefulness, quantity and clarity of the evidence that allows the initial classification for the crime of terrorism to be sustained.”
García Castellón concludes by pointing out that “the seriousness of the crimes that are being seen at this time, the clear impact that these had on the general interests and essential economic structures of the State, the specific damage that was caused to the injured parties and the serious injuries suffered by the victims of crime, not only demand clarification by promoting the action of justice, but also demand, in defense of legality, that the investigation and prosecution be carried out by the judicial body that holds the objective and functional competence for it. “.
In this regard, the judge makes it clear that in this case the jurisdiction would be the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, as stated in the reasoned statement that, he criticizes, the Prosecutor’s Office “intends to deactivate.”
In another order, the magistrate agrees to reject Marta Rovira’s appeal against her decision to send a rogatory commission to Switzerland to communicate her whereabouts. In that order, in addition, the judge also directed a Swiss bank to transfer information from Rovira’s accounts: from the movements in her account to the loans and checks issued.
