Prosecutor's Office points out that the evidence to accuse Puigdemont in 'Tsunami' is "insufficient"

The order of the investigator of the case is appealed when he does not see terrorism but public disorders

The Prosecutor's Office of the National Court has appealed the order of the judge of the National Court who agreed to direct the investigation into the Democratic Tsunami against the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont, considering that this special court "is not competent" for that case because there are no indications of terrorism but public disorder. Furthermore, he indicates that the evidence against Puigdemont is "insufficient."

According to the Public Ministry, the appeal was filed this Friday and it explains that the actions carried out within the framework of the Tsunami investigation, which began four years ago, "have not produced elements that allow us to sustain the existence of a criminal organization or group, nor its terrorist nature, which is what would justify the jurisdiction of the AN."

The prosecutor in the case, Miguel Ángel Carballo, emphasizes that the facts collected in the case do not prove the existence of hierarchies, nor distribution of functions among those investigated, nor the existence of a governing body, nor the concerted perpetration of different criminal acts. , necessary requirements, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, to assess that there was a criminal organization.

"Not a single one of these data is included in the proceedings. But the mere presence of several people in some proceedings does not in itself allow us to speak of a criminal group either," he explains.

Thus, it considers that the only criminal acts that can be deduced from the proceedings in the case would be those carried out at the Prat airport and at the La Junquera border post, constituting serious public disorder, after the repeal of sedition.

On the other hand, it indicates regarding the formalization of Puigdemont's accusation that "the evidence recorded is insufficient to do so" and highlights that in the police report that recapitulates what was investigated, no section is dedicated to him nor are specific facts attributed to him in relation to with criminal activities related to Tsunami Democratic.

"Having examined the grounds in this sense of the contested resolution, it is clear that no conjecture can be established from them regarding the criminal responsibility of the aforementioned person in these proceedings," he points out.

It disgraces the judge who has decided to go against Puigdemont and instead does not formalize charges against the former Catalan vice president Oriol Junquera or against the then Catalan president Quim Torra when he accuses them of "promoting" the platform. And he also criticizes that he calls Arnaldo Otegui, leader of Bildu, as a witness.

The prosecutor analyzes the role of each of the accused and highlights from the case of former deputy Xavier Vendrell that the evidence is "weak", and from the general secretary of ERC, Marta Rovira, who "is not accredited at all (...) coordination tasks of the platform".

THE DECEASED IN EL PRAT

Carballo begins his report by making it clear that he does not see terrorism in the actions of that platform that orchestrated massive mobilizations after the sentencing of the leaders of the 'procés', and severely criticizes that Judge Manuel García Castellón intends to investigate the death -- due to a heart attack-- of a person on October 14, 2019 at the El Prat airport to find out if his death is attributable to those investigated. "In our opinion (it is) implausible from the point of view of objective imputation," he highlights.

He is also critical of the section of the resolution in which he pointed out that the investigation should determine the identification of injured parties in general and the responsibility of those investigated for the injuries suffered by a police officer during the general strike on October 18, 2019. "None of these proceedings (...) could lead (...) to the existence of a group or criminal organization of a terrorist nature," he adds.

A MERE TWITTER PROFILE

In his appeal, the prosecutor dissects 'Tsunami' and concludes that from what is stated in the procedure, this platform "cannot be considered even indirectly a structured and hierarchical organization nor with a vocation for permanence with the existence of several people with diverse roles, as stated by the instructor".

In fact, he asserts that from what has been proven, Tsunami "is nothing more than a Twitter profile and in its most advanced phase of events, an 'app' designed to access QR codes that would allow knowledge of statements issued by that alleged entity". Carballo goes so far as to define it as a "engagement banner" for various groups and once again emphasizes that this "is unrelated to the legal classification of a criminal group or organization."

In this sense, he criticizes that the instructor said in his car that behind Tsunami there were vast material and economic resources "without collecting any data" about what is needed to deploy a Twitter account or an 'app', and also attacks the hypothesis of the supposed support structure in communicative, logistical, legal, economic and operational matters because "no data is provided about them, about the sources of proof of their existence, much less who would be responsible for acting in each of those divisions of labor.

And he points out that the fact that thousands of people attended some of the events does not necessarily imply that there is "the existence of a structure that would organize them efficiently since, beyond the statements on Twitter and (. ..) the computer application, no structure has been accredited".

THERE WAS NO INDUCTION FOR THE UNREST

In summary, Carballo explains that it cannot be maintained with the objective of imputing crimes by a terrorist group or organization, "that the existence of a digital application, which in short is the only thing truly accredited regarding Tsunami Democratic, is decisive" to consider that there is a group. "Under the existence of an application for mobile phones it cannot be argued that 'it is evident that there was a complete associative structure composed of numerous coordinated people,'" he says.

Subsequently, the prosecutor explains that although some acts echoed by the platform ended in riots and serious altercations, "there is not a single piece of information in the procedure that would allow those investigated to be accused of their favorable opinion towards them, to the execution of violent acts against police forces or other actions such as destruction of street furniture, etc., and even less so their induction, cooperation or participation."

And he emphasizes that it cannot be maintained that there was a managerial level due to the mere statement of one of the investigated who refers to another asking him "if the big boss knows a little about who I am*." "This is extremely insufficient," he points out.

In this sense, it points out that it can only be proven that two of the accused, Oriol Soler and the regional deputy Rubén Wassemberg, wrote statements that could mark the development of certain events -- "especially those of October 14" -- , but clarifies that "there is no evidence that they were the ones who decided it." And he limits his responsibility to what happened in El Prat because "in Barajas, no matter how much the intention was, it is clear that nothing happened."

After this, the prosecutor analyzes each of the facts that the judge attributes to Tsunami and points out that except for the collapse of El Prat and the blockade of the AP-7, neither in the actions in Ibex companies, nor in Barajas, nor in the general strike of October 18, nor in the demonstration of October 25, nor in the attempted boycott of the day of reflection, nor in the actions of the Barça and Real Madrid party was there any criminal character.