Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Reino Unido Marruecos Comisión Europea Yolanda Díaz VOX

The AN agrees with the CDRs prosecuted for terrorism and orders the judge of 'Operation Judas' to extend the investigation

In this way, it allows the defendants to "request the proceedings" that they consider "timely in their defense".

- 1 reads.

The AN agrees with the CDRs prosecuted for terrorism and orders the judge of 'Operation Judas' to extend the investigation

In this way, it allows the defendants to "request the proceedings" that they consider "timely in their defense"


The Criminal Chamber of the National Court (AN) has agreed with the 12 members of the Defense Committees of the Republic (CDR) prosecuted for terrorism and has ordered the judge in charge of 'Operation Judas' to extend the investigation of the cause to "guarantee" their "right of defense".

In an order of this Wednesday, to which Europa Press has had access, the magistrates of the Second Section uphold the appeal made by a member of the CDR, Ferran Jolis, against the writings by which the head of the Central Court of Instruction Number 6 , Manuel García Castellón, denied extending the investigation phase.

The Chamber has made this decision against the criteria of the Prosecutor's Office, which considered the resolutions appealed to be in accordance with the law. The prosecutor, "although prudently inclined to extend the investigation to safeguard the rights of the parties," considered that at this time there was "no diligence" that was "peremptory to carry out at this stage." In the opinion of the Public Prosecutor's Office, "an investigation that takes excessively long over time" should be concluded.

The magistrates explain that they had previously ordered the instructor to agree to another of the requests made by the CDRs. Specifically, last January the Chamber asked the magistrate to deliver the orders authorizing the wiretapping, as well as the original audios, considering it "legitimate" that they wanted to know this material as part of their right to defense.

"However," the resolution explains, the Court did not provide access to those documents and testimonies, related to the main case, until September 30.

"Throughout this period, and despite the procedure already agreed upon, at no time was the investigation of the case brought to an end during the period of nine months between the agreement of the procedure and its materialization and, nevertheless, two months before doing so, the extension of the investigation is denied considering that said period was not necessary because the only pending procedure had already been agreed, which in the terms provided in the previously transcribed norm obliged the investigator to issue a decision to conclude the summary, " explains the room.

"Not doing so," he continues, "a decision is produced that is not consistent with the processing of the case followed so far." And it is that, adds the order, "the same reason that existed to keep the case in the investigation phase occurs before and after the date of compliance with the term without the incorporation of the agreed diligence and without the investigation ending despite to have been the same as agreed, and for this reason the cause was not terminated".

In this regard, the magistrates make it clear that "what is relevant in this case is that the incorporation of the testimonies of the main case should always be done at least within a period of ten days prior to the conclusion of the summary order."

In the opinion of the Chamber, "it is evident that it is a question not only of incorporating said proceedings, but also of guaranteeing the right of defense of the defendants who have been accused for some facts that find their roots in them and, for this reason, that when the secret is lifted, they must be granted a period of investigation -- at least 10 days -- so that they have the opportunity to propose exculpatory proceedings in their defense".

For all these reasons, the magistrates point out that "denying the extension under the conditions set forth implies, de facto, agreeing to a summary conclusion without respecting the aforementioned term, injuring the right of defense" of all the defendants.

In this context, the Chamber shows that late access has been given "to substantial elements for the accusation made in the indictment, without allowing them to request proceedings in their defense, which is the sole purpose of the period not less than to ten days before the conclusion of the summary provided for in the procedural rules".

"That is why the appeal must be upheld and the appealed resolutions revoked, ordering the examining magistrate to authorize an extension of the investigation period sufficient to allow the appellant to request the proceedings that he deems appropriate in his defense in the investigation phase, later agreeing on what that proceeds on its usefulness and relevance", concludes the order.

It was on September 14, 2021 when the instructor prosecuted the 13 investigated by 'Operation Judas' for said crime and nine of them were also accused of possession, deposit and manufacture of explosive and flammable substances or devices of a terrorist nature. Subsequently, he filed the case for one for medical reasons, so the procedure continues only with respect to 12.

In the indictment, the judge explained that this group formed within the CDRs the so-called Tactical Response Team (ERT), a cell made up of a radicalized nucleus made up of individuals from different CDRs.

The creation of the ERT would be motivated by the need to have within the CDRs a clandestine group made up of highly trusted individuals who would show their total dedication to "the cause" in order to entrust them with the most sensitive actions.

According to the judicial account, the members of the ERT would have had an active participation in some of the most forceful actions that the CDR have carried out to date, such as cutting roads, erecting toll barriers or pouring oil on the section of the C -55 where the procession that transferred those convicted of the 'procés' from the Lledoners prison had to pass.

They would also have ambitious plans. Thus, they would have assumed the order they would have received from the so-called 'Catalan CNI' to provide the necessary logistical infrastructure to occupy the Parliament of Catalonia, defend it once taken and remain there for at least a week.

They would enter through the front door, because they would supposedly be given access from the inside, and they would communicate with the outside through an undetectable telecommunications network that they would configure themselves.

Along with a small group of people, they would cooperate with the 'Catalan CNI' to rent the houses and premises that would allow them to establish "intendency" bases, mounting long-distance antennas for said telecommunications network. All this with a budget of about 6,000 euros.

In this way, the twelve defendants, taking advantage of the contacts fostered by their militancy in the CDR, "constituted themselves in a cell that raised the intensity and nature of the actions carried out, to a higher level."

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.