Convictions for sedition of Catalan leaders




The Supreme Court has sentenced Oriol Junqueras to 13 years in prison and Carme Forcadell, the Jordis and five former councilors for sedition and embezzlement.


The defendants in the trial of the 'procés'.  Photo: EiTB

The Supreme Court has sentenced 13 years from jail to Oriol Junqueras already barely between 9 and 12 years old to Carme Forcadell, the Jordis already five ex-councilors for sedition in the “procés”, while it has acquitted of embezzlement the three defendants released, who will not go to prison.

Specifically, the Criminal Chamber imposes the highest sentence on Junqueras for sedition in a medial contest with embezzlement, aggravated by its amount, followed by 12 years for ex-councilors Raul Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa for the same crimes.

Forcadell sentenced to 11 years and six months; to 10 and a half years to the ex-councilors Joaquim Forn and Josep Rull, whom he acquits of the crime of embezzlement; and nine years to the Jordis. All of them convicted of sedition.

The court has acquitted of the crime of embezzlement the three ex-councilors who were at liberty, Carles Mundó, Santi Vila and Meritxell Borrás, whom it condemned for disobedience to one year and eight months of disqualification and a fine of 60,000 euros.

The trial was seen for sentence last June, four months and 52 sessions after its launch on February 12 of this year. Since then the court has been deliberating by legal blocks and this past weekend the magistrates made a final reading of the text. However, they could not prevent it from leaking to the media that the rebellion had been ruled out and the sentences would be for sedition.

See also  Covid PCR tests could be replaced by an X-ray with results given 'in minutes'

This same Monday first thing in the morning, justices Manuel Marchena, Antonio del Moral, Luciano Varela, Andrés Palomo, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, Ana Ferrer and Juan Ramón Berdugo have signed the resolution, which has begun to be communicated to the parties.

Apart from prison sentences, the Chamber imposes the same penalties in years of absolute disqualification for all defendants, which means not being able to be elected to public office during the time that their sentences last.


Against the criteria of the accused, the Chamber does consider proven the existence of “indisputable episodes of violence” but it specifies that not enough to be able to convict for rebellion since “the conspiracy” was “aborted with the mere exhibition” of some pages of the BOE that published the application of 155 in Catalonia.

For the Chamber, the instrumental, functional and pre-ordered violence did not occur directly and that is why it does not condemn them for rebellion, because for this it would have been necessary for them to promote violence to achieve secession.

Remember the sentence that some of those responsible for that “conspiracy” undertook a “sudden flight”. Those who stayed – either by personal decision or by the agreed prison measures – “gave up unconditionally from the adventure they had undertaken.”

All the accused, they add, were “aware” that “the so-called right to decide – which they say is endorsed by no European Constitution– was nothing but the decoy for a mobilization that would never lead to the creation of a sovereign state“and that the” excited citizens “who believed otherwise, were unaware that this right had mutated into the right to pressure.

See also  This Earth Day, Biden faces 'headwinds' on climate agenda

There was the “contradiction” of presenting the referendum as an exercise of the right of self-determination, when the truth is that “what they wanted it was a direct negotiation with the state”.

“What happened on October 1 was not just a demonstration or a massive act of citizen protest”

Instead, the magistrates understand that what happened in the fall of 2017 was sedition because the convicts mobilized the citizens in “a public and tumultuous uprising” to prevent the direct application of laws and hinder compliance with judicial decisions.

Thus, the Chamber says that “what happened on October 1 was not just a demonstration or a massive act of citizen protest. If it had been that, there would be no criminal reaction. improvised levatamiento encouraged by the defendants among many other people to turn to paper (…) some judicial decisions “.

Nor was September 20 a mere public rally, but the Jordis were “fully aware” that a judicial commission was registering the Ministry of Economy by order of a judge, and what motivated their action was “to demonstrate to all of society , in full and accredited concert with government officials that the judges and magistrates (…) had lost the ability to execute their decisions. “

The court does not doubt the importance of civil disobedience – an argument made by some of the defendants, mainly the Jordis -, which it describes as “an expression of an ethic of dissent”. Now, it makes it clear that “no one can claim the monopoly of interpreting what is legitimate” by discarding the arguments of those who “do not share their ideas about self-determination.”

See also  Scottish Football Transfer News: Ex-Rangers star surprise contender for Hibs job, Aberdeen and Hearts face signing competition, St Mirren goalkeeper plans

Regarding public spending, the Chamber admits that The entire Government of Carles Puigdemont signed a solidarity agreement for the referendum, although it considers that it is a prior agreement of wills insufficient to convict of embezzlement; “Material acts, nuclear or not” are essential that have not been proven in the case of these five ex-councilors, some of whom gave “specific orders” not to allocate funds to 1-O.

The rest of those convicted of embezzlement, including Junqueras, “did not limit themselves” to showing their “willingness to escape financial control” but rather “carried out specific acts of economic waste that was nothing other than the genuine expression of their disloyalty.”

After the blow to the Prosecutor’s Office for not convicting rebellion, the judges also did not respond to their request to prevent the convicted from obtaining the third degree until half of the sentence was completed, since that power “cannot be interpreted as a legal mechanism to prevent in advance decisions of the competent prison administration “, in this case the Generalitat.

And it reminds the Prosecutor’s Office that it has the capacity to “react”, that is, to appeal the decisions of the Catalan administration that it does not share.

Related Posts

George Holan

George Holan is chief editor at Plainsmen Post and has articles published in many notable publications in the last decade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.