Alberto Rodríguez’s defense has embarked on the path of the Constitutional Court and has filed a nullity incident against his conviction for assaulting a police officer in 2014. The lawyers of the former United We can deputy, who left his seat and politics after being convicted of The Supreme Court, understand, among other things, that his conviction has violated his right to political representation and that his right to assembly and demonstration has also been affected.
Alberto Rodríguez, the Supreme Court, Congress, Batet, the Secretary General … and start over
The nullity incident is a movement designed for those occasions in which the convicted person considers that a sentence has violated their fundamental rights in some aspect that could not be denounced before a final judgment was handed down on the case. The sentence against which it is interposed, as in this case, must not be appealable by ordinary means. The nullity incident is also considered a prerequisite to be able to file an appeal for protection before the Constitutional Court.
Rodríguez’s lawyers denounce in their 58-page brief that their fundamental right has been violated “to the presumption of innocence, to an impartial judge, to effective judicial protection, to a process with due guarantees, to freedom of assembly and of manifestation, political representation, the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality as a guiding principle that must inform criminal law “. This, the letter says, it has not been possible to denounce before since the Supreme Court has acted as the sole instance as it is a deputy and measured at this time.
Rodríguez’s brief charges, in the first place, against the testimony of the assaulted agent: “The agent’s statement was not only sparing, but it also incurred obvious contradictions.” The defense of the former deputy understands that in this case “a case of” unique testimony “has been artificially constructed, since there were a multitude of people, numerous recorded images and among the people who were there, without a doubt, were all the components of the police device “.
The former deputy also questions the impartiality of the magistrates who handed down the sentence and denounces that their political rights have been violated twice: for having been left without a seat and for the disqualification of the right to passive suffrage. He adds that “this double penalty is not only suffered by my client, but also by his electorate, since he represents 64,000 voters in his constituency.”
Rodríguez’s lawyers, as they have already denounced in previous writings, again charge against the actions of Meritxell Batet. They assure that “in an absolutely irregular manner the President of Congress herself has ordered her deprivation of her seat and the Central Electoral Board has proceeded to replace her based, supposedly, on a clarification that this Ilma. Chamber would have sent her.”