2024-08-18 19:37:37
Two days after appearing in Barcelona, giving a short speech and leaving without being caught by any police force, Carles Puigdemont stepped out again on the 10th in what he named the House of the Republic Waterloo, Belgium. He has remained there since he left Spain in 2017 to avoid it because of his involvement in the organization of the 1-O referendum. And from there he now faces an uncertain judicial horizon after Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena decided to leave him out of an amnesty law designed, in large part, to alleviate his criminal situation. In the Government it was considered necessary for the political normalization of Catalonia after the process.
Puigdemont reappears in Catalonia: “A country with an amnesty law that does not have an amnesty has a democratic problem”
This decision by Judge Llarena, questioned by the Executive and shared only by the extreme right Vox, confirms that there may be several chapters left in his tangled judicial case to be written. His defense, the State Attorney’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office have already appealed the order that denies the application of the amnesty law to the former president of the Generalitat. They understand that the crime of bias that the judge accuses Puigdemont of comes on the edge of convention because he did not enrich himself “personally” and, furthermore, that his intention goes against “the will of the legislator”.
But the decision is now in the hands of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, specifically, of the three magistrates who are in charge of resolving the appeals presented against the motions of the instructor of the process. And a favorable solution for Puigdemont is not expected, since this court has ruled in the same sense as Llarena in relation to those who have already been convicted by the process, such as Oriol Junqueras.
The Junts leader will only be able to go to the Constitutional Court when this avenue has been exhausted. To do this, you will need to allege a violation of rights that may generate a defense that also has constitutional significance. His defense has an asset in his favor: the dissenting vote of progressive Ana Ferrer. In her writing, the judge warns that there is a risk of breaking the principles of legality and predictability due to the interpretation to veto the amnesty of her colleagues in the courtroom”, two of the cases in which the Constitutional Court can overturn the decisions of the courts to correct. . normal, as happened recently in the case of Andalusia’s ERE.
Reactivate the euro order
Meanwhile, Puigdemont will remain outside the amnesty and a search and arrest warrant will be in place if he sets foot in Spain again. In addition, there is the possibility for a Supreme Court judge to reactivate the European arrest warrant he has kept suspended since 2019 now that he has lost his immunity after ceasing to be an MEP. The far-right Vox, who practices the popular accusation, has already claimed that he would try to open a new extradition process that has been stuck in various courts in Europe in recent years. In that case, Puigdemont would risk arrest anywhere in the EU.
Embezzlement is a relevant crime in the cause of the process, not only because it is the only one that carries a prison sentence. It is also the only criminal offense that the foreign courts have considered the extradition requests as a way to deliver Puigdemont to Spain. He was in Germany in 2018, but was rejected by Judge Llarena when the German judges ruled rebellion and sedition. After the Supreme Court itself threw out the crime of rebellion and repealed the crime of sedition, his prosecution was reduced to embezzlement and disobedience. And this last crime was amnestied, so all that remains is the tendency.
Llarena’s thesis is that this crime cannot be ‘erased’ since Puigdemont and the rest of the leaders saved money by promoting the referendum with funds from the Generalitat instead of paying it out of their own pockets. And that, as a result, was personal enrichment. It is an interpretation that avoids the wording of the law, which is clear on the subject. The rule states that the friends measure covers embezzlement crimes as long as they did not have an “enrichment purpose”. That is, “to receive a personal benefit of a financial nature.”
The Supreme Court’s move also shows that it was of no use that the rule was restated in its final draft precisely to support that idea. Or that the sentence of the process, written by these same judges, did not mention the personal enrichment of those convicted of embezzlement. That ruling did not quantify the bias, although it was considered proven that the amount embezzled “significantly” exceeded the 250,000 euros that represents the threshold to apply the escalation rate.
This is also not the first time that the interpretation of this crime by the courts creates objectives that are contrary to the reduction of the punishment for the leaders of the process. In 2023, the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor’s Office left the reform of a tendency agreed upon by the Government and ERC to adapt a criminal response which they considered to be disproportionate to the events of the fall of 2017.
But the High Court insisted that Puigdemont should be prosecuted under the aggravated type, which includes sentences of up to 12 years in prison and 20 years of disqualification, and that the type of mitigation established after that reform could not be applied to him. With the amnesty, there is embezzlement again. And Vox’s real right expects it to be the vehicle that allows Puigdemont to be extradited after his two escapes.
#Puigdemonts #uncertain #judicial #horizon #escape