Judge Llarena refuses to withdraw from Puigdemont's case for ruling on a possible amnesty law

He insists that it will not be up to him to decide on the constitutionality of the norm

MADRID, 6 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The investigating judge of the 'procés' case, magistrate Pablo Llarena, has refused to withdraw from the case for having ruled on the "constitutionality" of a possible amnesty law, as requested by former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont. It is the fifth time that the independence leader has tried to expel the judge from the procedure.

Puigdemont asked the Supreme Court (TS) to remove Llarena - in charge of investigating him for an alleged crime of disobedience and embezzlement - for speaking out, in an event held on September 11, on the "constitutionality" of a possible amnesty to the 'procés'.

In the writing, to which Europa Press has had access, the defense of the independence leader insisted on an argument that he had already used on previous occasions against the magistrate: "His absolute lack of impartiality."

Now, Llarena has issued an order - reported by Europa Press - in which he calls Puigdemont's request "manifestly unfounded." As he explained, the conference in which he participated took place in a "strictly academic" space and responded to the analysis of the basic technical criteria for supervising the constitutionality of any legal norm, but without evaluating any specific aspect of a possible amnesty law.

In this sense, the judge has insisted that in said conference he did not advance his procedural position at any time, but rather made a general and open academic approach that was highlighted by the media.

In any case, Llarena has assured that - regardless of the content of the conference - its impartiality cannot be considered compromised when the recusants demand their immediate separation from the investigation.

The magistrate has stressed that "it is impossible" that his conference could reflect any conditions for the processing of the case today, since no amnesty law has been promulgated that can be applied today to the case being prosecuted.

"The current cause of recusal seeks the immediate removal of the instructor by speculating on my position in the face of a legal provision that does not exist and may never exist, so that consideration today lacks any relevance for the case," he noted.

Subsequently, the judge explained that "in the event that one day an amnesty law were to be enacted, with material application criteria that do not even exist today, it will not be up to the instructor to decide on the constitutionality of the norm, not even "it will not be up to you to question its constitutional validity or to raise a question of unconstitutionality."

Consequently, Llarena has concluded that the challenge is based on a "manifestly unfounded" cause of abstention, which justifies its inadmissibility 'a limine' (outright) and has stressed that he sees in this maneuver a delaying strategy of the defense.

The magistrate has assured that Puigdemont's actions could have been "instrumentalized" to -- while it is resolved -- delay any action by this instructor aimed at issuing a possible European arrest warrant, procedurally foreseeable, and to be able to complete a case that is only pending. that an investigative statement is received from the rebellious defendants.

For the judge, the dilatory purpose is underlined by the recusal documents themselves, which state that the recusal process can be extended to the magistrates called to resolve it, thus generating a chain of exclusions that delays the final decision on the instructor's possibilities of action. and, with it, the possibility of making any decision in the process.

This being the case, it has influenced that this obstructive intention is perceived with greater probability from the consideration, already advanced, that on numerous occasions the defendants have "unjustifiably" challenged him.

On this point, Llarena has recalled that if Puigdemont and the rest of the defendants in absentia - with this or other procedural strategies - manage to reach the date of June 2024 without making it possible to effectively claim the jurisdictional cooperation of other countries, the request requested from the current European Parliament of which they are part.

For all these reasons, the judge flatly rejects this fifth challenge, based on reiterated doctrine of the Constitutional Court.