Wed. Aug 21st, 2019

The twelve defendants of the 'procés'

Los doce acusados del ‘procés’

The Supreme Court judge from Tuesday 12 February to twelve independence leaders
catalans for his participation in the call
you procés
which culminated in October 2017 with the celebration of a independence referendum previously banned by the Constitutional Court and a unilateral declaration of independence by the Parliament, which led to the application of Article 155 of the Constitution in Catalonia and the dismissal of the entire Government.

Thus, the ten members of the Executive of Puigdemont who decided to stay in Catalonia and face the trial, the former president of the Parliament Carme Forcadell, the president of Òmnium, Jordi Cuixart, and the then president of the ANC and current president of the JxCat parliamentary group, Jordi Sànchez. These are the twelve leaders who sit in the dock of the defendants of the Supreme.

He has been in prison since November 2, 2017. His imprisonment was decided by the judge of the National Court Carmen Lamela. Together with the former Interior Minister, Joaquim Forn, they were the only two members of the Government of Carles Puigdemont who did not win their freedom when the case reached the Supreme Court. In December 2017, Judge Pablo Llarena kept him in prison on understanding that his contribution "is directly linked to a violent explosion that, if repeated, leaves no room for correction or satisfaction to those who are affected by it".

Since then, the leader of ERC has tried to be free repeatedly but has always been rejected by the allegation that there is a high risk of flight, which increases from the moment that Puigdemont subtracted from the Spanish Justice and continues to maintain its political activity.

The Prosecutor's Office is asking for 25 years in prison for the crimes of rebellion and embezzlement of public funds; the State Advocacy, 12 years for the crimes of sedition and embezzlement; and the popular accusation represented by Vox, 74 years of rebellion, embezzlement and criminal organization.

The Prosecutor's Office considers Junqueras, along with other members of the then Govern, the previous days of the referendum, "fully aware of the illegality of the process of secession that they were promoting, the patent illegality of the referendum initiative, and the very high probability that there were violent incidents, they made repeated and continuous public appeals to the mobilization of park citizens to vote, to protect the polling stations and prevent the forces of public order from fulfilling their mission of closing centers and seizing electoral materials. "

However, the ERC leader has always defended that the defendants "before independence" are "pacifist" politicians, victims of a "persecution" of the independence movement.

He was imprisoned on November 2, 2017. He was in office in July 2017. A little over three months in office he was dismissed pursuant to Article 155 of the Constitution, as well as the rest of the members of the Government. Precisely, one of his lines of defense is that when he arrived at the Puigdemont team, everything was organized. Both the investigating judge and the Prosecutor's Office consider him one of the main responsible for ordering, according to the accusations, the Mossos d'Esquadra to allow the holding of 1-O. He has always denied it and maintains that he never gave such an order to the police commanders, commanded by Major Josep Lluis Trapero.

He has been in prison since November 2, 2017. Although on one occasion the Prosecutor's Office defended his release due to an illness he had contracted, the Supreme Court kept him in prison.

The Prosecutor's Office is asking for 16 years in prison for the crimes of rebellion and embezzlement of public funds; the State Advocacy, 11 and a half years for the crimes of sedition and embezzlement; and the popular accusation represented by Vox, 74 years of rebellion, embezzlement and criminal organization.

Judge Lamela imprisoned him along with the other members of the Govern on November 2. A month later and when the case reached the Supreme Court, the instructor Pablo Llarena agreed to his release. Three months later, he was elected to the Presidency of the Generalitat but the CUP did not give him his support and he was not elected as Puigdemont's successor. Just one day after that vote, on March 24, Turull, together with ex-consellers Raül Romeva, Josep Rull, Dolors Bassa and the former president of the Parliament, Carme Forcadell, entered prison again after the indictment. Since then, they are all imprisoned.

The Prosecutor's Office claims 16 years in prison for him; the State Advocacy, 11 and a half; and Vox, 74 years old. The accusations place him at the epicenter of the meetings held since 2015 between pro-independence leaders, in which it was concluded that the State would never negotiate bilaterally the holding of a referendum on self-determination, "for which they decided to convene it unilaterally."

In his defense brief, Turull maintains that they were mere political agents who carried out the will of the people: "Is it that they claim to be the nine defendants from their official offices who personally rose publicly on the days of proceedings?" .

Like Turull, he was imprisoned in November, was released in December, and again imprisoned in March, after Judge Llarena prosecuted them for a crime of rebellion and another for embezzlement of public funds. He faces the same prison sentences as Turull, Forn, Rull and Bassa.

The Prosecutor's Office maintains that the delegations of the Government abroad, such as Diplocat, under the direction of Romeva, "had a transcendental importance on the day of October 1st." These delegations would have articulated the vote of Catalans living outside of Catalonia. In addition, the Public Ministry accuses him of contracting through Diplocat a series of "experts", whose mission would be to analyze the political context of Catalonia between September 4 and October 8, "from the perspective of the secessionist project and the need of the referendum. " In his opinion, with the presence and intervention of these experts "it was intended to give an appearance of normality to the vote, and at the same time, to offer with international projection a partial account of their circumstances and their illegality."

In his defense brief, Romeva defends that he limited himself to exercising his "basic fundamental rights". It rejects that it has committed a crime of embezzlement, "in the absence of any act committed by the authority to defraud expenses unlawfully against the duty of fidelity to the custody of public funds." The exconseller, together with Junqueras, only acknowledge having acted unilaterally on one occasion: when they decided to call and promote the consultation.

After the admission to process of the complaint of the Office of the Prosecutor, suffered the same path as the rest of his colleagues. Since March he is in prison, under the same accusation as Turull, Forn, Romeva and Bassa. The accusations point to him as the representative of Convergència Democrática de Catalunya (CDC) that formalized, together with ERC and the sovereign entities Òmnium Cultural and ANC, in March 2015 the "concert of illegal action through the agreement of a road map" regarding of the independence process.

In addition, they accuse him of having boasted of having prevented a ship from being robbed to house members of the Police in the bay of Palamós on September 21, 2017, who were coming to prevent the referendum on October 1. 6,000 agents of the National Police and the Civil Guard moved those days to reinforce the Mossos d'Esquadra in compliance with the judicial order to avoid voting. "Most of them stayed in authorized boats, which were docked in the port of Barcelona, ​​in view of the impossibility of doing so in other ports. Rull in his capacity as conseller of Territori arbitrarily prohibited that a boat with police officers could dock in the port of Palamós, "says the Prosecutor's Office.

In its defense brief, it maintains that the permit of this vessel was denied "simply because the conditions necessary to dock at the aforementioned port were not met." "For operational reasons it was not technically possible, in the middle of the cruise season, since there was availability being the docks previously reserved by other companies, "he says.

He has been in prison since March. It will face the crimes of rebellion and embezzlement of public funds. He is accused of allowing the use of public centers for the 1-O vote. "The premises and public centers were destined, by collegial and solidary decision of all the members of the Government, to a purpose that had been declared illegal in numerous resolutions of the Constitutional Court and in the judicial proceedings followed in the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia" , collects the indictment from the Prosecutor's Office.

According to the Public Prosecutor's Office, on September 29, 2017, Bassa withdrew Labor officials, whose department he owned, the competition over the polling centers; developed a volunteer base to participate in the celebration of 1-O; encouraged and encouraged participation and social mobilization; and invited the workers of the Generalitat to participate in the strike of 3-O, giving instructions to the unions to inform their members that all those who were performing their working time had time to exercise their right to vote on 1- OR.

Through his defense, Bassa has rejected at all times that the use of the centers is a crime of rebellion and argues that the declaration of independence of Catalonia "had no effect."

Together with Santi Vila and Carles Mundó, they are the only three exconsellers who are not in prison. She only remained imprisoned from November 2 until December 4. Then he published a book recounting those days: "Terrible, prison is terrible," he said.

In his case, the accusations consider that he did not commit a crime of rebellion. Both the Public Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney's Office are claiming seven years in prison for a crime of embezzlement of public funds and another of disobedience. Vox asks for her 24 years in prison, adding a crime of criminal organization.

As a member of the Government led by Carles Puigdemont, he is responsible for having authorized expenses from the Conselleria for the organization of the referendum. In her defense brief, Borràs recalls that she was not a deputy, so she did not have "any intervention in the elaboration, nor deliberation, approval or vote of the law" that protected the decree of convocation of 1-O, so that dissociates from "the actions that were carried out in the parliamentary seat". It also rejects that there is embezzlement for the use of public buildings, rejecting the report of the experts that estimated the cost of opening them up by almost one million. On the promotion and publicity of the referendum it defends that the invoices issued were not paid.

It is in circumstances similar to Borràs and Vila. He was imprisoned for a month and they are being punished for the same crimes. After leaving the Government for the application of Article 155 of the Constitution, Mundó was one of the first defendants by the 'procés' who announced his withdrawal from politics. He did it in early January, when he was already free. His name came to sound presidential if Esquerra Republicana won the 21-D elections in case Junqueras could not get out of prison. He left politics to return to practice law and got the Supreme Court justices Pablo Llarena not to prosecute him for a crime of rebellion. Still, he must sit on the defendant's bench for embezzlement and disobedience.

The Office of the Public Prosecutor places Mundó among the leaders who participated in "multiple" meetings, "reserved", between 2015 and 2016 to prepare a unilateral referendum as a preliminary step to achieve independence from Catalonia. Those meetings involved members of the Government of the Generalitat, senior officials of the regional administration and some relevant people from the world of independence.

In his statement in court, Mundó rejected "absolutely violence as a form of expression in any context." In his opinion, the only way is through democratic and citizen participation. "For my convictions, violence is not a way but must be rejected always and in any case," he said.

He was the only member of the Government that only spent one night in prison in November after testifying before the judge of the National Court Carmen Lamela. The reason was that he resigned hours before the unilateral declaration of independence. Even so, he is considered a member of the Puigdemont team that took an illegal referendum to the end and for which he faces seven years in prison - from the Attorney General's Office and the State Attorney - as well as 24 years according to the accusation of Vox.

Vila was the only one who maintained another line of defense from the first moment. As explained in court, the days before the DUI was warning that the way was not to take unilateral decisions. "When I saw that it was imminent that these unilateral decisions could be made, I was necessarily forced to resign for coherence."

He explained that he was part of a group of politicians who were negotiating with authorities in Madrid -which he did not want to identify- "how could we find a situation to avoid the collapse, which is so unfair, and which generates so many social tensions in Catalonia" .

In prison since October 17, 2017. Along with the president of Òmnium Cultural, Jordi Cuixart, are the defendants who have been imprisoned the longest. They were the first to be summoned to testify for the altercations before the Conselleria d'Economia on September 20. At the time of the facts investigated, Sànchez had no public office. He was once imprisoned when he was proposed as candidate to preside over the Generalitat, but the Justice did not grant him the freedom to be able to present himself to the investiture. Since January 2018 he is a deputy in the Parlament.

The Prosecutor's Office claims 17 years in prison for him, while the State Bar requires 8 years. The popular accusation accuses him of rebellion and criminal organization, for which he urges a sentence of 62 years in prison. The Public Prosecutor's Office maintains that Sànchez and Cuixart led a "permanent mobilization" in favor of the referendum on October 1, "and against judicially ordered actions to prevent it." Thus, he argues that the ultimate purpose of the mobilizations organized by ANC and Òmnium was to achieve the holding of the referendum and with it the proclamation of a Catalan republic, independent of Spain, "being aware that they were acting outside legal channels, preventing the application of the legal system as a whole ".

In his defense brief he tells how the demonstrations of 20-S did not clash with the warnings of the judicial or police authorities: "Neither the ANC nor Sànchez never personally received a request from the judicial authority to refrain from any behavior, although during the weeks prior to the referendum, the campaign activity in favor of participation and the affirmative vote in this referendum was well known and public ", says the document submitted to the Supreme Court.

He faces the same prison years as Sànchez. The Prosecutor's Office accuses him of being part of the design of the strategy to achieve the independence of Catalonia unilaterally and against the State. In addition to considering him promoter of the confrontations of the 20-S before the Ministry of Economy, the Public Ministry accuses to him to impel all the Catalans to that they went to the different polling centers and prevented that the police forces fulfilled their assignment to prevent the voting . For the Prosecutor's Office, it did so in spite of knowing the "serious confrontations that could result from a citizen mobilization (not only because of what happened on 20-S, but because of the existence of a significant police force that was subject to the judicial order to prevent the celebration of the vote) ". And it did, according to the prosecutors, "in execution of the plan initially designed and taking advantage of its leader to favor a collective mobilization".

In addition to denying categorically that he or his association promoted any type of violence, Cuixart has based his defense brief in accusing the Spanish State of violating a whole set of fundamental rights by the "overprotection of the territorial unit of Spain". In his opinion, since September 2017 the State institutions acted "overflowing the democratic state of law" in order to "prevent the realization of the referendum of self-determination." It also maintains that this violation has been carried out in a "concerted" manner by the three branches of the State and specifically points out four agents who have acted coordinated: the investigating court number 13 of Barcelona, ​​the Superior Prosecutor's Office of Catalonia, the Bar State and the Vox party.

In prison since March 24, 2018 after informing her that she was being prosecuted for the crime of rebellion. The Prosecutor's Office requests 17 years in prison for a crime of rebellion in the capacity of promoter or principal head, the State Bar, 10 years, and Vox, 62 years.

He is accused of allowing the voting of a series of laws aimed at declaring the independence of Catalonia knowing that they were illegal and "contravening the mandate of the Constitutional Court." Forcadell has always defended that as president of the Mesa del Parlament she could not avoid voting for any law because otherwise it would be to attack the democratic system.

It is the only one of the Bureau that is going to sit on the bench of the defendants of the Supreme Court after the Chamber accepted that the rest of the deputies who were part of it and who are also prosecuted are finally prosecuted before the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) for a continued crime of serious disobedience, which does not entail a prison sentence but a mere disqualification.

In his defense brief, Forcadell emphasizes that "he did not participate or could not participate" in the referendum call or in his promotion, direction, preparation or execution. In addition, it indicates that the Parliamentary Bureau does not decide on the content of the legislative activity developed by the groups and that it is the Board of Spokespersons, in which all the groups are, which schedules the parliamentary work and "defines the agenda. and the content of parliamentary debates. "

Source link