Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Feijóo Turquía Crímenes Rusia Yolanda Díaz

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

They also ask to maintain sentences for Romeva, Turull and Bassa, and to lower the sentences for the five convicted who were convicted only for the crime of sedition.

- 1 reads.

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

They also ask to maintain sentences for Romeva, Turull and Bassa, and to lower the sentences for the five convicted who were convicted only for the crime of sedition

MADRID, 25 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

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the magistrates of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme They must carry out this sentence due to the penal reform that repealed sedition and modified embezzlement.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

On the other hand, regarding the five convicted only for sedition --Carme Forcadell (11 years and 6 months), Joaquim Forn, Josep Rull (10 years and 6 months), Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart (9 years)-- they do ask for discounts .

They request 9 years and 2 months of disqualification for Forcadell (7 years and 6 months of absolute disqualification for public disorder, and 1 year and 8 months of special disqualification for employment or public office for disobedience).

For Forn and Rull, they request a sentence of 8 years and 2 months of disqualification (6 years and 6 months of absolute disqualification for public disorder, and 1 year and 8 months of special disqualification for employment or public office for 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 public disorder.

They justify that for the so-called 'Jordis' they also urge the disqualification coupled with the aggravated public disorders in which, although they were not authorities -like Forcadell, Forn and Rull- they had an "outstanding participation" in "the direction and agitation of the masses causing the disturbances of public order that occurred during the months of September and October 2017".

Along the same lines, they point out that the crime of disobedience is not applicable to Sànchez and Cuixart -which they do see in Forcadell, Forn and Rull- because it was the then "members of the Government of the Generalitat and the president of the Parliament" who that, "after being personally required to refrain from supporting or promoting unconstitutional initiatives or actions, they openly refused to comply with the resolutions" of the Constitutional Court.

They also clarify that, with respect to these nine convicts, it is not appropriate to review the prison sentences because "they have been extinguished due to their partial compliance and due to the granting of a pardon to all of the rest of the prison that was pending completion."

As for Santi Vila, Carles Mundó and Meritxell Borràs, they indicate that none of their sentences can be reviewed because they were convicted of a crime of disobedience -which the reform has not touched- and they have already served their respective sentences.

Thus, the prosecutors understand that the disqualification sentences handed down for the repealed sedition should be reviewed "exclusively" because those that correspond to the crimes for which they replace the illegal crime eliminated --public disorder and disobedience-- are inferior and, therefore, more favorable to the prisoners.

In their reasoning, they start from the premise that, although "the repeal of sedition (...) has eliminated one of the penal instruments for responding to attacks on the constitutional order, weakening its adequate protection", "it is not equivalent to decriminalization."

And this, they develop, because "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."

"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 most serious and complex of sedition," they state.

For the prosecutors, "it is evident that the facts consisting of serious disturbances of public order that the sentence declares proven have not been decriminalized, so that, if the crime of sedition disappears, its appropriate regulatory framework is public disorder."

They highlight that not only did this crime exist when the events occurred, but without it, the already repealed offense would never have been reached because they are "closely linked" illegal: "There is no sedition without a public and tumultuous uprising to prevent by force or compliance with judicial decisions outside of legal channels".

In this regard, they recall that the judgment of the 'procés' considered proven that there were "riotous events resulting in serious disturbances of public order, difficulties and cuts in circulation, invasion of facilities and buildings seriously affecting the functioning of the Administration of Justice and of the essential services of such centers, and acts of intimidation and violence against people and things".

However, they state that "it would be totally incomprehensible if the multitude of violent episodes, organized with the aim of altering the constitutional order, planned, devised, directed, promoted and carried out intellectually and materially by the defendants, were turned into atypical from the start." prism of public order".

However, they believe that the old sedition is not exhausted only by substituting it for public disorder, hence they also add the term of disobedience so as not to leave "non-compliance with judicial decisions" unpunished.

Prosecutors put the magnifying glass on the four convicted --Junqueras, Romeva, Turull and Bassa-- who were convicted of sedition in a media contest with embezzlement to analyze whether this last crime "carries a greater penalty of disqualification than the sum of the crime of disobedience and of the new crime of public disorder, to impose the most serious crime in the media contest".

In his opinion, "the answer is affirmative" because "the embezzlement for which they were convicted continues to have --despite the reform-- a greater punitive reproach than public disorder."

The Public Prosecutor sees clearly that the proven facts allow the new embezzlement of article 432 of the Penal Code (CP) to be applied "directly", "which sanctions anyone who appropriates, for profit, for themselves or for a third party, the public patrimony they were in charge of".

At this point, he accepts the interpretation made by the instructor of the 'procés', Pablo Llarena, regarding the fugitives of 1-O, to also defend that "the profit motive is not only integrated by obtaining an economic benefit for the author or for a third party, but also for the achievement of any other benefit, advantage or satisfaction, as happens when appropriating public funds they are used for criminal purposes".

For these reasons, it rules out applying the new 433, which punishes (with lesser penalties than 432) the authorities that use public funds for a purpose other than that intended, arguing that "the diversion of public funds to the commission of criminal activities and / or illicit cannot, under any circumstances, be included in the use of funds for public purposes".

However, the prosecutors offer the court of the 'procés', although only "alternatively" to 432, article 432 bis (also with lesser penalties compared to the first), intended for "the authority or public official who, without the intention of appropriating it, I will allocate to private uses the public patrimony entrusted to it".

Avatar
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.