October 19, 2020

The CDR activist Tamara Carrasco alleges before the judge that she is the victim of “a State operation” for being an independentist

It was arrested in April 2018 for terrorism and rebellion, confined in his village for more than a year and finally this Monday he sat on the bench for a much less serious crime: inciting to commit public disorder. The CDR activist Tamara Carrasco has alleged before the judge that she is the victim of “a State operation” against the independence movement and that the court case promoted her “public lynching.”

Before the criminal court 25 of Barcelona, ​​the trial against Carrasco was held this Monday, which has been seen for sentence. In his turn to last word, Carrasco has argued that he is being judged as an independentist. “I am here for being who I am and thinking as I think. The suffering and the family has not helped at all,” he denounced.

The Prosecutor’s Office asks Carrasco for seven months in prison for sending an audio on WhatsApp in which he called to cut roads and train tracks coinciding with the arrest of Carles Puigdemont, which at the discretion of the Public Ministry constitutes a crime of incitement to commit public disorder (not the altercations themselves because Carrasco did not attend any of the protests you mentioned).

The view has revolved around the audio and its value as evidence. While for the Prosecutor’s Office the recording is unequivocal proof that Carrasco was exercising “coordination and directing tasks” of the CDRs with the aim of “subverting the constitutional order,” the defense has emphasized that none of the Civil Guard agents Those who analyzed the audio have detailed in their reports or in the trial where they got it, which invalidates it as an element to be able to convict Carrasco.

In their testimony as witnesses, the agents have been unable to identify the specific source of the audio and how they obtained it. “It came from a Whatsapps chain and we had indications that it could leave Baix Llobregat but I do not remember where this indication could come from,” said the instructor of the reports. “The audio ran on WhatsApp and was published in the media, but I do not exactly remember if we took minutes on this,” added his secretary.

Carrasco’s lawyer, Benet Salellas, has criticized in his final report that there is “not a single line, not a single word that explains” how the proof was obtained. “Not everything is valid, blind shots are not worth it. If it is not explained how the evidence is provided, the right to due process is violated,” said Salellas.

Carrasco’s version, who at all times acknowledges being the author of the audio in which she reported a series of roadblocks and protests, is that she sent the recording to a “private WhatsApp group.” “I did not invent anything, they were things that everyone knew, that had been said in assembly and I transmitted them,” she added.

The prosecutor links Carrasco’s audio with seven roadblocks – the A-2 in Soses (Lleida), the AP-7 in La Jonquera and Figueres and the N-11 in Llers (Girona), the N-340 between Camarles and L’Ampolla and Alcanar (Tarragona) and Diagonal and Meridiana avenues in Barcelona– as well as the concentration that surrounded the Barcelona Sants station. However, the Prosecutor’s Office does not place the accused physically in any of the protests. Only in a WhatsApp audio.

Former ERC councilor sentenced

On the other hand, The Criminal Court 2 of Manresa (Barcelona) has sentenced the former ERC councilor and extermination deputy mayor of Sant Joan de Vilatorrada (Barcelona) Jordi Pesarrodona for a crime of disobedience on 1-O by preventing the Civil Guard from entering a school election of your municipality. The judge has imposed a 14-month disqualification penalty and a fine of 2,100 euros.

The sentence declares proven that Pesarrodona “kept the doors closed” of the school despite the Civil Guard operation telling him that the agents “had to enter in an orderly manner” to seize ballot boxes and ballots by court order. “The acting Civil Guard could not carry out its legally and judicially assigned function in said active voting point,” concludes the judge.


Source link