The prosecutors of the 'process' ask the Supreme Court to uphold the sentence of 13 years of disqualification to Junqueras

They are interested in lowering the sentences of the five convicted who were convicted only for the crime of sedition

The prosecutors of the 'procés' have requested this Wednesday the court that tried 1-O to maintain the sentence of 13 years of disqualification for the former Catalan vice president Oriol Junqueras, within the framework of the review that the magistrates of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme must carry out this sentence due to the penal reform that repealed sedition and modified embezzlement.

In their statement of allegations, to which Europa Press has had access, the prosecutors directly ask not to review in any way the sentences imposed on Junqueras (13 years in prison and disqualification), Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa (12 years in prison and disqualification) for crimes of embezzlement and sedition.

On the other hand, with respect to the five convicted who were only convicted of sedition --Carme Forcadell (11 years and 6 months), Joaquim Forn, Josep Rull (10 years and 6 months), Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart (9 years)-- yes ask for discounts.

Thus, they are interested in 9 years and 2 months of disqualification for Forcadell (7 years and 6 months of absolute disqualification for the crime of public disorder, and 1 year and 8 months of special disqualification for employment or public office for the crime of disobedience).

Para, Forn and Rull request a sentence of 8 years and 2 months of disqualification (6 years and 6 months of absolute disqualification for the crime of public disorder, and 1 year and 8 months of special disqualification for employment or public office for the crime of disobedience).

And, for Sànchez and Cuixart, the prosecutors José Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal, Fidel Cadena and Jaime Moreno demand a sentence of 5 years of special disqualification from employment or public office for the crime of public disorder.

Prosecutors explain that "sedition as a complex crime encompassed and absorbed in its typical unfairness both the force and violence that were used, as well as public disorder and non-compliance with judicial decisions", for which reason they maintain that "its repeal does not imply a decriminalization".

"The consequence cannot be other than a new trial of criminality, by way of 'resurrection or return to life' of the preterite precepts, through the application of those less serious criminal offenses that were not applied due to absorption in the criminal offense more serious and complex than sedition", they reason.