Pedro Rubira has defended the National Court jurisdiction to try the case against the former chiefs of the Mossos d’Esquadra, Mayor Trapero among them.
Following these statements, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has made it clear that it does not “question the professionalism of the magistrates who work in Catalonia”.
Translated by Albert (@dites_dites)
The public prosecutor of the National Court Pedro Rubira expressed his doubts this Tuesday on whether the case of rebellion and sedition can be investigated and tried with “impartiality” if it is sent to the Catalan jurisdiction. “Can there be impartiality and serenity if the cause of rebellion and sedition is sent to Catalonia?”, he asked during the hearing that examined the jurisdiction of this court to try the proceedings against the former chiefs of the Mossos d’Esquadra, Josep Lluís Trapero among them.
Thus, Rubira has defended the competence of the National Court because the facts that are going to be tried, namely the actions of the autonomous police on 20 and 21 September 2017 and during the illegal referendum on 1 October of that year, did threaten the state form of government.
“How will it not have an impact when you want to establish an independent republic through an illegal referendum? How will it not be competent in the face of these very serious facts?”, has stressed in his reply to the defences of the defendants César Puig, former secretary general of the Ministry of Interior of Catalonia, and Pere Soler, former director of the Mossos.
Rubira has mentioned the lawsuit that started this proceeding, presented by the late Attorney General José Manuel Maza, which justified the jurisdiction of the Court because “in this case we observe the convenience of preserving the required serenity in the prosecution of some conducts that are generating a feeling of social fracture that cannot be ignored”.
At this point, the prosecutor asked the courtroom if, as Maza already stated in his lawsuit, “impartiality and serenity are possible” in the event that the case for rebellion and sedition that is being followed in the National Court “is sent to Catalonia”.
After Rubira’s statements, the Prosecutor’s Office of the National Court has explained that “in no case do they question the professionalism of the magistrates who exercise their duties in Catalonia and in the rest of the national territory” and have stated their “confidence in the independence of judges and courts in Catalonia, as well as the impartiality of each judge in each case submitted to their jurisdiction”.
Trapero’s defense does not make allegations
Puig’s lawyer, Jaume Alonso-Cuevillas, requested the hearing of the article of previous pronouncement, to which Soler’s defence, Pau Ferrer, later adhered. However, the lawyer of Trapero and the mayor of the Mossos Teresa Laplana, Olga Tubau, has chosen not to question the jurisdiction of the National Court and has not made any allegations during the hearing.
Before the First Section of the Criminal Court, presided over by the magistrate Concepción Espejel, Cuevillas has defended that the case for rebellion and sedition that is being followed in the National Court should be prosecuted by a court of Catalonia on the understanding that the offences were committed solely and exclusively within that autonomous community and that what happened in September and October 2017 are not offences against the form of government, according to the Criminal Code in force.
“If we review all the criminal codes in force, rebellion or sedition have never been part of the offences against the form of government. The National Court has never been competent to hear the crimes of rebellion and sedition,” the lawyer remarked on several occasions during the hearing, in which he mentioned the jurisprudence of the National Court itself and that of the Supreme Court in this matter.
In this regard, he quoted the consultation of 9 November 2014, against which up to three lawsuits were filed, also for rebellion and sedition, before the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC), which declared its jurisdiction “without the Public Prosecutor challenging it”. In fact, he considers that if the National Court were to confirm its jurisdiction there would be a “change of criteria” with respect to what it has been doing, which, in his opinion, “could later be interpreted by European courts as a special court”.
Translated by Albert (@dites_dites)
Original source: eldiario.es (@eldiarioes)
Published on: 5th of February 2019