BarcelonaThe Supreme Court closed the case of 1 October and its derivatives a long time ago, but this file is still very much alive at the European Court of Human Rights. And there is not just one case: apart from the main sentence for sedition and embezzlement, the most advanced procedures have to do with the possible violation of the political rights of ex-prisoners, preventive prisons or even the impediment to part of the Constitutional Court in Parliament to be able to debate on self-determination or the monarchy. Spain, in fact, is just beginning to defend itself in front of Strasbourg against these accusations, in a series of letters which, as the ARA has been able to ascertain, do not even refer to the motivation of the pardons – it only quotes them in the description of the facts for the release of the prisoners -, nor in the reform of the Penal Code, nor in the amnesty, currently being processed in the Congress of Deputies.
Sign up for the Politics newsletter A look at the little balls of power
Sign up for it
So far there has been at least a response from Spain in four different procedures: one opened by Oriol Junqueras regarding the denial of prison permits to leave prison and take possession of the act of deputy in Parliament; one for Jordi Turull for pre-trial detention; another for Jordi Sànchez for the violation of political rights such as his suspension as deputy, and another for ex-members of the Parliament table Josep Costa and Eusebi Campdepadrós for the orders of the Constitutional Court to veto certain parliamentary debates.
The one who signs the documents in all cases is the State lawyer Alfonso Brezmes Martínez de Villarreal, appointed State agent before the European Court of Human Rights in March 2018 still with the Popular Party government. Born in 1966, before being appointed to the ECtHR he had developed his entire career in the general administration of the State, and in the last legislature of the PP – before the motion of censure against Mariano Rajoy – he had held a position in the general sub-directorate of Constitutional and Human Rights of the Attorney General of the State, where he had already brought issues related to Strasbourg and the United Nations.
Reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s arguments
In all cases, the State’s lawyer asks that the demands of the former political prisoners not be accepted and justifies all the decisions taken by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. In Turull’s claim, against the pre-trial detention issued in a context in which he was a candidate for the presidency of the Generalitat, he replies that the deprivation of liberty was justified by the seriousness of the events of 2017 and the possibility of a criminal reiteration. “It’s a copy and paste of the Supreme Court’s arguments,” say defense sources. He does the same with Junqueras, who, unlike Turull, only alleges the violation of his political rights because the Supreme Court did not allow him to attend the constitution of Parliament as a deputy in 2018. “There was a risk of criminal recidivism for the sole presence of the appellant”, states the resolution to which the ARA has had access. “There was the possibility that his leadership would manifest itself again with violent collective citizen mobilizations and against the legal framework of our coexistence”, concludes the State attorney, reproducing exactly the resolutions of the Supreme Court and reaffirming that he be adjusted to “right”.
It also justifies the deprivation of political rights to Jordi Sànchez when they did not let him campaign in the 2017 Catalan elections or appear in the investiture debate in Parliament, and they also suspended him as a parliamentarian in July 2018. According to sources of the defense, despite the fact that the ex-leader of the ANC was sanctioned for participating through a message recorded from prison in a meeting of the Catalan women on 21-D, the State attorney uses it to to say that the deprivation of rights was not such without mentioning the subsequent prison sentences.
And how does he argue that both Sànchez and Junqueras could participate in the 2019 campaign of the Spanish women and in the subsequent constitution of the Spanish Courts? For the context. What’s more, he argues that the fact that on that occasion they were allowed to hold press conferences or go to Congress is proof that Spain respected their political rights.
Incompatibility with other instances
Despite the fact that Spain ignored the resolution of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, which called for the release of Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Sànchez, Jordi Cuixart, Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn and Dolors Bassa, it now wields the resolution before Strasbourg so that the demands of the ex-political prisoners are not accepted. Remember that the ECtHR cannot examine an issue that has already been the subject of proceedings in other international bodies.
What do the defenses answer? Beyond criticizing that Spain alleges these resolutions when it did not comply with them, they argue that there is an incompatibility of the processes because different issues are alleged, argue sources consulted by the ARA. In the case of Turull, he did not go there expressly because he wanted his pre-trial detention to be reviewed by Strasbourg; Junqueras does not allege pre-trial detention but the violation of political rights to avoid duplicity with the resolution of the working group; while Sánchez withdrew one of his demands before the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in order to go to the ECtHR. They do not convince the lawyer of the State: he argues that, since the UN resolution refers collaterally to political rights, Strasbourg can no longer look at it.
Costa and Campdepadrós
Alfonso Brezmes Martínez de Villarreal also defends the action of the Constitutional Court when censoring the debates of the table. It does so, according to the letter to which the ARA has had access, because it considers that neither Costa nor Campdepadrós are entitled to file an appeal at the ECtHR: their argument is that they were warned of possible criminal liability as a parliamentary body and not as deputies with individual rights. “It is a conflict between two state authorities, the TC and an autonomous Parliament,” states the letter to delegitimize them to file the lawsuit. However, he also adds that even if they had the right to file the lawsuit, the Constitutional Court acted correctly because it had the duty to “enforce its sentences” with the legal tools at its disposal.
Now the lawyers are already working on response briefs in Spain, while then it will be the court’s turn, although it may still take years: Strasbourg will issue the verdicts with all the arguments on the table.
Spain asks for more time to respond to the appeal on the sentence of 1-O
The claim that Spain has not yet answered is the one against the judgment of 1-O. According to legal sources consulted by the ARA, he had until January and has asked for an extension until February 14. At that point, the amnesty will have been approved at least in the Congress of Deputies – it is scheduled for January 30 – and it will be necessary to see whether or not the State incorporates this element in its allegations in Strasbourg. If it does, there may be a boomerang effect for claimants: the ECtHR could consider that, because criminal liability has been extinguished, they have lost their status as victims.
2023-12-25 21:13:35
#Spain #defends #European #Court #Human #Rights #Strasbourg
