Neither violence was part of the plan in the “procés”, nor was the risk of overthrowing the Constitution in Catalonia “real”, but a mere “dream” of some pro-independence leaders who actually sought to pressure the Government. The Supreme Court thus closes the debate: it was sedition, not rebellion.
It is the main conclusion reached by the court of the “procés” throughout 493 pages of judgment in which it offers other keys such as the symbolic nature of the 2017 declaration of independence, the diversion of funds by some members of the Government, or the rejection of the hackneyed argument about a “right to decide” by an autonomous community that does not exist for the Supreme Court and should be understood rather as a “political aspiration.”
These are the 10 keys to the sentence that has sentenced the leaders of the ‘procés’ to between 9 and 13 years in prison for a crime of sedition (four of them also for embezzlement) and the same disqualification penalties, a punishment that has also relapsed on the three ex-councilors who remained at liberty and who finally will not go to prison after being convicted of disobedience.
1. THERE WAS VIOLENCE, BUT NO REBELLION
The Chamber recognizes the “indisputable” and “paradigmatic” episodes of violence during the independence process, especially on 20-S and 1-O, although these are not enough to convict of rebellion, as requested by the Prosecutor’s Office, because the violence was not ” instrumental “,” preordained “,” functional “or suitable to achieve independence.
Despite their “rhetorical display,” the defendants knew that they had no means to “subdue the State”, which “maintained at all times control of the military, police, jurisdictional and even social force” and aborted the “conspiracy with the mere exhibition “of some pages of the BOE that published the application of article 155.
There was, therefore, no “real” risk that the Constitution would be repealed in Catalonia but rather “a mere daydream” or “a deceptive device” to mobilize citizens. For the Supreme Court, what took place was a “public and tumultuous uprising” that prevented the application of the laws in Catalonia and hindered compliance with judicial decisions, that is, sedition.
2. THEY DECEIVED “ILLUSIONED CITIZENS”
The Supreme Court accuses sovereign leaders of deceiving “deluded citizens”, who “naively” trusted their political leaders and believed that they would reach the “longed-for horizon of a sovereign republic”, a new state that only existed “in the imaginary of their promoters “.
In other words, the Supreme Court believes that they used the slogan of the “right to decide” as a “decoy” for “a mobilization that would never lead to the creation of a sovereign State.”
3. THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, SYMBOLIC AND INeffective
In this matter, the Supreme Court has agreed with the defendants, who subtracted any legal validity to the declaration of independence that the Parliament approved on 27S, shortly before article 155 of the Constitution was activated, without the Government ordering to lower the Spanish flag of the Palau de la Generalitat.
4. A THIRD DEGREE THAT COULD BE IMMINENT
The Supreme Court has ignored the request of the Prosecutor’s Office that convicted persons be prevented from accessing the third degree until they have served half their sentence, which opens the door for the Department of Justice of the Generalitat – which has a maximum term of two months to classify them – grant them the open regime.
Nothing in the law prevents the defendants, who have been in prison for almost two years, from now enjoying a relaxation of the prison regime, so that they only have to go to prison to sleep. Of course, the decision of the Ministry of Justice can be appealed by the Prosecutor’s Office, so that it will be the justice who has the last word.
Once convicted, they are also close to having ordinary permits, which requires having served a quarter sentence.
5. PUIGDEMONT, IN THE POINT OF VIEW AGAIN
Although the sentence hardly dedicates space to him, his arguments regarding the responsibility of his colleagues in the Government have served Judge Llarena to request his delivery again.
6. NOBODY HAS BEEN TRIALED FOR VOTING
The sentence attacks the “mantra” that the leaders of the “procés” have ended up on the bench for allowing a vote.
“For this fact, no one has been charged, nor has anyone been brought before a court, nor has he even been sanctioned by the government,” emphasizes the court, recalling that what is criminal is “when it is spurred not only to vote but to defend the ballot boxes “and to prevent the legitimate action of the police and court orders.
7. THE RIGHT TO DECIDE DOES NOT EXIST FOR AN AUTONOMOUS COMMUNITY
The right to decide of an autonomous community does not exist. That is how blunt the Supreme Court has been, which warns that this principle invoked by sovereignty does not appear in the Constitution or in the international treaties signed by Spain, so that “it will always enclose a leap into the void.” For the magistrates, what the “procés” did is turn the right to decide into a “right to pressure” the central government.
8. THE MOSSOS, ACCOMPLICES OF 1-O
With the trial for rebellion of Major Josep Lluis Trapero on the horizon at the National Court, the court has accepted the version of the former Catalan police chief that he unsuccessfully ordered the Government to call off the 1-O due to the risk of violence.
But, on the contrary, it has concluded that the device of binomials to prevent the 1-O was “clearly insufficient”, with episodes of “authentic complicity” and “almost collusion” of some agents with voters.
9. THE 20-S AND THE 1-O, FOUNDATIONS OF THE SEDITION
The Chamber praises dissent and even recognizes the role of civil disobedience “as a historical vehicle to confront situations of tyranny and injustice”, but believes that the ‘Jordis’ exceeded the legitimate scope of protest, encouraging citizens to resist against to the State security forces.
10. MISCONCEPTION, HIDING AND LACK OF CONTROL
A crime that has fallen on four members of the previous Government who carried out acts of “manifest disloyalty” in the administration of funds and who carried out a “deliberate concealment” of the expenses they made or committed for the 1-O, an action that in the case of Junqueras it was “palmaria”.
Facts that the Supreme Court considers proven, which although it does not establish a specific figure, sees proven that more than 250,000 euros were embezzled, while also putting on the table an “insufficiency of the formal control of the Ministry of Public Finance to detect them.”