Two members of the UN Human Rights Committee say that Spain acted "reasonably" towards Junqueras and the advisers

They see no reason to question the Spanish courts because those affected acted against the law and disregarded the Constitutional Court

MADRID, 31 Ago. (EUROPA PRESS) -

Two of the 17 members of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee have disagreed with the opinion in which it is concluded that Spain violated the political rights of the former Catalan vice president Oriol Junqueras and the former councilors Raül Romeva, Josep Rull and Jordi Turull when he suspended his public functions after being prosecuted and without waiting for the 'procés' conviction. They have insisted that the action of the Spanish courts was "reasonable and timely."

José Santos Pais, from Portugal, and Wafaa Bassim, from Egypt, have stressed that Junqueras and the three former councilors acted against the law and disregarded the decisions of the Constitutional Court. "Their rights were restricted because they resorted to illegal means instead of the constitutional avenues available to amend the Constitution," the two experts said.

In his opinion, the measure of suspension of public functions imposed was "reasonable, necessary, proportionate" and "foreseeable" in the "serious circumstances that the domestic courts were facing at that time." The two dissenting members have stressed that the measure was adopted by a judge "after a deep and detailed reasoning of all the available evidence" at that time, "in the framework of a criminal investigation with all the guarantees of due process."

The four independence leaders were prosecuted, along with other leaders, for the crime of rebellion, which requires a violent uprising against the constitutional order. In July 2018, they were suspended from their positions as deputies in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law, which allows the suspension of officials only when they are accused of rebellion. In October 2019, they were convicted of sedition.

After analyzing the case, Pais and Bassim have assured that they do not see a violation of the political rights of Junqueras, Romeva, Rull and Turull, included in article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Both have argued that the Spanish courts interpreted the crimes of rebellion and sedition "in a reasonable and timely manner." And they have concluded that, therefore, "the Committee should not act as a fourth instance to question its analysis."

For Pais and Bassim "there was no arbitrariness or denial of justice by the national courts, nor was irreparable damage caused" to the former vice president and the three former counselors. In line, they have recalled that the four "recovered their political rights (most of them were elected members of the Cortes Generales in 2019)".

In this sense, they have explained that the Supreme in its sentence finally concluded that the four had committed a crime of sedition and not of rebellion, for which the suspension imposed was revoked. In his opinion, "the course of events only reflects the regular functioning of national courts, where a later decision (during the trial) evaluates and changes an earlier decision (by the investigating judge) in the face of more detailed and extensive evidence."

Of the 17 members of the Committee, one --Spanish-- has abstained from participating in the vote and two --Pais and Bassim-- have voted against. In the opinion, of 18 pages and that has been collected by Europa Press, it has been recalled that, "given that exceptional suspensions of public functions are imposed prior to the existence of a conviction, the necessary standards for the compatibility of these suspensions with the Pact --of the UN Committee-- would be, in principle, stricter than those applied after the existence of a conviction".

The Committee has considered that Spain "has not shown" that the application of the national laws that provide for suspension in office has been carried out in compliance "with the predictability requirement demanded by Article 25 of the Covenant."

Thus, understanding that the decision was not based on reasonable or objective reasons, it has ruled that article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was violated, which includes the right to "vote and be elected in periodic, authentic elections, held by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the electors".

For this reason, he recalled that the State now has the obligation to provide complainants with an effective remedy, and this "requires comprehensive reparation for individuals whose rights have been violated." But he has specified that, in the present case, his opinion on the merits of the claim "constitutes sufficient reparation for the determined violation."