To seat the Supreme Court defendant bank, the vice president of the government of Catalonia and eight councilors, the president of parliament and the leaders of Òmnium and the Assembly is, on the whole, a fact with an undeniable political burden. And that the main accusation is for the crime of rebellion, based on imagined violence, emphasizes even more that the vocation is not to seek justice but to punish people who face a political movement that the state fights with it. Penal Code instead of doing it with political arguments, with the polls and with the votes.
You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but that will not make it true. The judicial process that has been articulated against the leaders of independence has the epicenter in the announcement and the celebration of the referendum of October 1, 2017. But, with the penal code in hand, since 2005 This conduct is not a crime because it has been expressly repealed by the Penal Code. In fact, the same justification of the Organic Law 2/2005 that eliminated these crimes said, in a text, that these facts refer to behaviors that do not have an entity sufficient to be a crime, and even less if the sentence is in prison. He stressed that the penal law is governed by the principles of minimum intervention and proportionality and that the Constitutional Court reiterated that a person can not be deprived of the right to freedom if it is not strictly necessary. And he added that the legal system has other forms of legality control other than criminal law.
The desire to pursue the criminal path a question of a political nature has led to the accusation of constructing legal furniture
You do not have to be an eminent jurist to understand that if some facts like convocation and the organization of a referendum are no longer a crime, it is legally impossible that if you do, you can commit a crime. The desire to pursue the criminal route a political issue has led to the accusation of constructing a legal decoration, adorned with crimes such as disobedience, embezzlement or rebellion, to turn a behavior into a crime that is expressly committed decriminalized. This is a fraud because it returns to transforming what was no longer into crime.
This is one of the many examples that offers us the judicial cause against independence. In the series of cases open to the courts of education, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia, the National Court and the Supreme Court there is a long list of irregularities that allow to prove that in this case the defendants do not they see respected fundamental rights to the impartial judge and to the judge predetermined by the law. How is it possible, for example, that for the same facts, which are undeniably connected to each other, the cause is divided into four different courts?
This same week we have read in these pages that the legitimacy of the instruction of the cause of the question 1-O has been questioned in the court number 13 of Barcelona. After learning three different versions, the explanation of the defense lawyer was confirmed by the fact that the rules for distributing issues to educational courts are not applied correctly, even if the current law explicitly states that the court that is in service it must be removed from the distribution the day a complaint is registered and also that the following day, in practice this does not apply. In other words: the rule says one thing, but in practice it is done the opposite. There have been questions that do not respond to transparency in the assignment of the investigating judge and it is necessary to be able to verify if the computer program that is used guarantees a random cast in which it is impossible to make changes.
That Spanish justice closes its eyes on reality does not turn it into a blind justice to act impartially
Ensuring that justice is blind, that is fixed in deeds and not in people, is a sacred principle. The respect of the fundamental right to be judged by an impartial judge will be observed with the magnifying lens by the European Court of Human Rights when the problem arrives in Strasbourg. Who will make them understand that skip the current rule to decide that the investigative judge does not violate fundamental rights?
Put things to rest, that in a cause with so much political load they see that those who act as a popular accusation, next to the public prosecutor's office and the state law, are a far-right political party that wants to expel immigrants and the denial of violence against women is a terrible letter of introduction to a judicial system that wants to be approved in the most advanced democracies. That Spanish justice must close its eyes on reality does not transform blind justice into acting impartially.