This Tuesday starts the trial to you procés
, one of the trials that will mark the history of Spanish justice and will be with the previous issues that raise the defenses. Before the interrogation of the accused begins, with the former vice-president of the Generalitat Oriol Junqueras at the head, his lawyers will demand the nullity of the cause and they will argue violation of rights Y lack of impartiality of the Civil Guard, responsible for the investigation of the case.
However, and in view of the improbability of their admission, they will also request the incorporation of a series of tests that have been rejected in the test admission order issued the previous week. The lawyers will insist on the relevance of certain testimonials, expert reports and documentaries for the Chamber to review it and, if it considers it appropriate, admit it. Sources of these defenses calculate that each lawyer intervenes an hour and a half approximately.
According to these sources, the declaration of the former president of the Generalitat is going to be claimed again Carles Puigdemont as witness. This one has offered to be interrogated by videoconference. The trial court has already made it clear that this claim is not viable given that Puigdemont has been removed from Spanish justice.
In fact, the former president should be sitting on this same bench of the accused as the person in charge of having carried out the independence of Catalonia outside the legal channels, through the holding of the referendum on October 1 despite its illegality and with a unilateral declaration of independence in the Parliament.
If he is not accused and imprisoned, it is because he fled Spain before being summoned to testify in November 2017, when the rest of the members of the Govern were sent to prison by order of the judge of the National Court Carmen Lamela. Therefore, for the court his interrogation is not acceptable unless it is as accused and face-to-face.
Different is the interrogation of the largest of the Mossos d'Esquadra, Josep Lluis Trapero. In his case, he has been summoned to testify as a witness even though he is being tried for the same acts at the National Court. The difference is that he will attend in his double condition and can be a witness because he is prosecuted by another court in another proceeding. The same happens with the former members of the Parliamentary Bureau, who have been sent to be tried by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia for a crime of disobedience.
They will also insist on the testimony of former President of the Parliament Joan Rigol to declare his role as mediator with the PSOE and PP parties to negotiate the organization and holding of a referendum on November 9, 2014. The court has already rejected this statement, like the former socialist vice-president Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba, on understanding that these facts, regarding the 9-N consultation, "have no connection with the facts that are now subject to prosecution".
Lack of time
The defense attorneys are also going to claim that they have not been able to study the 54 accepted documentary evidence and that they probably will not be incorporated until at least this Monday. They consider that they do not have enough time to study them in preparation for the interrogations, which could begin this week.
On this point the court ruled on Thursday in a resolution that refused to suspend the start of the trial. The magistrates explained that "to speak of anticipated documentary evidence to refer to the documents that have been claimed, supposes distancing oneself from the genuine procedural meaning of the anticipated evidence", which is contemplated for cases of foreseeable unrepeatability of a certain testifying statement.
Scotland Yard and Cosidó
For its part, the defense of Cuixart will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider accepting several expert evidence that was denied, including a report by two Scotland Yard experts on September 20 and October 1, 2017.
In his defense brief, Junqueras, who faces 25 years in prison, already warned that he would request the declaration of Senator Ignacio Cosidó, to explain what intervention or knowledge had the president of the Trial Court, Manuel Marchena, in the decisions of configuration of the new General Council of the Judicial Power (CGPJ) and the political pacts carried out in this regard, as well as to relate what communications or meetings it has had with said magistrate "in order to accredit elements on which previous issues are based on violation of the right to the impartial judge ".
Likewise, it is going to request that the Court of Instruction No. 7 of Barcelona be informed of whether the accused have been accused or have requested to participate as a private or popular accusation the Unified Union of Police Unions-SUP, the Spanish Confederation of Police-CEP, Unión Federal of Police-UFP and Professional Trade Union of Police-SPP.
Civil Guard, accusation and investigator
It asks that the same information be claimed from another Court, the 3, which also investigates facts related to the 1-O, so that it can say if they are present in the case as an accusation, police unions or the Civil Guard, as the Union of Officers of the Professional Civil Guard, Spanish Association of Civil Guards (AEGC) and Union of Civil Guards (UNIÓN-GC).
"The two previous documentaries are transcendental so that the defenses can articulate previous issues related to the lack of impartiality of the investigators that may have affected their rights to the presumption of innocence, the right to defense and the process with due guarantees, and to influence the evaluation of the evidence that may subsequently be developed in the plenary when it comes from the police investigative initiative ".
Partiality of Llarena
Another of the ways in which the defenses will go is due to the lack of impartiality of the investigating judge, Pablo Llarena. Thus, we will insist on the request for information regarding the distribution of this issue. "In the light of the news that reported the existence of irregularities in the appointment of the investigating judge, it is necessary to know the information referred to determine the existence of defects in the procedure with an impact on the impartiality of the investigative and prosecutorial body as well as to substantiate allegations of violation of the fundamental right to the ordinary judge predetermined by law and the right to a process with all the guarantees ".