They criticize that they were not allowed to accuse them of the crimes of murder and terrorist injuries
Victims of the jihadist attacks of 17-A in Catalonia have asked the Supreme Court (TS) to annul the sentence of the National Court because they were not allowed to accuse them of the crimes of murder and terrorist injuries. “We have felt abandoned by Justice,” they said.
This is how they spoke in the context of the hearing that was held this Wednesday to study the appeals presented by the defenses and some accusations against the sentence by which Houli Chemlal, Driss Oukabir and Said Ben Iazza were sentenced to sentences of up to 43 years in prison for membership in a terrorist organization, possession, storage and manufacture of explosive substances or devices of a terrorist nature; and havoc in a terrorist attempt in conjunction with 29 crimes of injuries due to serious recklessness.
At the beginning of the hearing, the accusations made by several civilian victims and mossos d’esquadra have used their turn to speak to request that the sentence of the National Court be annulled because they were not allowed to accuse terrorist murder and terrorist injuries.
The accusations have criticized that the magistrate in charge of the investigation sent the case to trial “limiting” the crimes for which the three defendants could be tried. “The entire ability to limit the object of the procedure cannot be left to an investigating magistrate,” they have pointed out.
In this sense, the lawyers have insisted that the investigation had produced sufficient evidence so that the accused could be charged with crimes of murder and terrorist injuries.
“Precisely those who have been convicted followed the slogans of DAESH. They were trained based on DAESH with a single purpose: to spread terror in society. This is in the facts,” said one of the lawyers while emphasizing that “the fraud and intentionality” of the accused has been proven.
Along these lines, one of the lawyers in charge of representing two victims has criticized the quality of the investigation. “We are missing a fourth man from the terrorist cell. Doesn’t anyone care? We do,” he said. And he added: “No one investigated anything. It is the State itself that should have investigated it.”
Likewise, these accusations have called for a new investigation to be opened to determine whether the Imam of Ripoll died in the Alcanar explosion.
PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OPPOSES CORRECTING THE AN
The Prosecutor’s Office, however, has shown its opposition to the arguments of these accusations. He has disfigured the complaints by considering them confusing and has asked what the problem is with rejecting the victims’ intention to accuse them of crimes of murder and terrorist injuries.
“There is no possibility of recourse to the indictment,” recalled prosecutor José Martínez Jiménez while emphasizing that this is a “complex” matter in which there are “many victims.”
The State Attorney’s Office was not present at the hearing. The court itself recalled at the beginning of this Wednesday’s session that both the Public Ministry and the State legal services opposed the admission of the appeals for processing.
THE ACCUSED REQUEST ACQUITMENT
The defenses, for their part, have taken advantage of the cassation hearing to fight the ruling of the National Court and request the acquittal of their clients.
The lawyer for Driss Oukabir – who rented the van that Younes Abouyaaqoub used to run over pedestrians on Las Ramblas – has defended that her client rented a van thinking it was for a move and has stressed that “there is nothing to prove that he knew previously” that it would be an attack.
At the same time, he stressed that the trip he made to Morocco “has nothing to do with a terrorist cell” and that at no time during the investigation has anything been proven about alleged contacts.
In his speech, he denounced the “break in the chain of custody” of a mobile phone seized by the authorities, which has led him to question the “integrity” of the investigation. He has also requested the annulment of the conversations included in the summary because, in his opinion, they were “manipulated.”
He has also denounced the violation of the accusatory principle because, in his opinion, he has been convicted based on statements from protected witnesses who, without further evidence, place him in key places in the investigation and confirmed his supposed “radicalization.”
For its part, the defense of Houli Chemlal – who recorded the videos in which the terrorists are seen preparing the explosives in Alcanar – has appealed the sentence, considering that his presumption of innocence was violated.
In this sense, he has requested that he be acquitted because he was not aware of the plan and did not participate in its preparation. “He was helping a friend. He had no intention of using the explosives. He was not even aware. He does not belong to an organized gang,” the lawyer said.
As he pointed out, Chemlal made the video “without knowing the purpose” they were working on and once he suspected it “he did nothing for fear of reprisals.”
In line, the defense of Said Ben Iazza – convicted of a crime of collaboration with a terrorist organization for providing an NIE and a van for the purchase of hydrogen peroxide – has stressed during the hearing that it has not been proven that his client knew that chemical substances were going to be purchased in their name or that an attack was going to be perpetrated or that it was a terrorist group.
Thus, it has disgraced that he has been convicted in a “sentence that refers to what the dead did” and the facts attributed to his client are not proven. And he has also criticized the fact that the extenuating circumstance of confession was not applied to him when the National Court’s own resolution includes his statement as evidence.
The Prosecutor’s Office, which has also rejected the arguments of the defense, has defended that part of the sentence be allocated “to the dead”, given that it considers that “it is not just about contextualizing or seeking the truth.” “It’s something more. It’s establishing certain conclusions about the main issue,” he said.
Within the framework of the hearing, those who agreed with the ruling of the National Court also spoke out, including the Barcelona City Council, the Generalitat of Catalonia, the Association of Victims of Terrorism and the 11M Association Affected by Terrorism. They have asked that the appeals of those convicted be rejected.
THE CONTESTED SENTENCE
It should be remembered that in May 2021 the AN sentenced Chemlal and Oukabir to 53 years and 6 months in prison and 46 years in prison, respectively, for belonging to a terrorist organization; possession, storage and manufacture of explosive substances or devices of a terrorist nature; and havoc in a terrorist attempt in conjunction with 29 crimes of injuries due to serious recklessness. The third defendant, Said Ben Iazza, was sentenced to 8 years in prison for collaboration with a terrorist organization.
Subsequently, in July 2022, the AN Appeals Chamber ratified the fundamental aspects of that first sentence, but partially upheld the appeals presented by Chemlal and Oukabir for a technical issue, thereby setting their sentences at 43 and 36 years. while that of the third convicted person remained at 8 years. None of the three will be able to serve more than 20 years in prison.
