The letter points out that the decision not to suspend the execution of the prison sentence causes the former president of the Board “serious irreparable damage and that could be unnecessary”
The defense of the former president of the Board Jose Antonio Grinan has filed an appeal before the Court of Seville in which he requests an extension of three months for his client enter prison, after the Sevillian court gave him ten days to do so in compliance with the ruling in the ERE case.
The appeal, presented by the lawyer José María Calero and sent to EFE, requests the First Section of the Hearing “a prudential term greater than the ten days agreed for the beginning of the execution of the execution of the custodial sentence -we propose three months-“he points out.
Griñán’s defense also proposes “to send official letters to the National Government and to the First Section of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, asking them to remove the obstacles that prevent the most expeditious processing of the two files, as long as they affect the ordinary course of the execution of a judgment”.
The letter considers that the decision adopted by the Court of Seville not to suspend the execution of the prison sentence causes the former president of the Board “serious irreparable damage and that could be unnecessary”, for which reason he claims that he agrees to “reconsider” said decision.
The request to extend the deadline is addressed to “avoid compliance that could be failed, undue, unnecessary or inappropriate“, therefore, according to the lawyer, “it is undeniable that if the partial pardon were granted or the nullity question for which the reduction of the sentence to two years is considered, the imprisonment that is ordered would be unsuccessful, improper or improper, that is, unnecessary”.
“What we want is an execution of the sentence that, in its time, adjusts to criteria of prudence and justice,” says the defense brief, which adds that if the Chamber agrees to extend the agreed term from ten days to three months “the Supreme Court would have time to decide on the “suspension of the execution requested therein”.
This, according to the former president’s lawyer, cannot be considered a “breach” of article 80 of the Penal Code and 988 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which regulate the suspension of the execution of sentences and sentences.
“Such breach would occur if compliance with the final judgment is prevented or if a capricious or unjustified delay is caused.. But that has never been requested, nor could it be requested by someone who has shown and will show all respect for authority and the courts,” the defense brief states.
The lawyer insists that with a period of more than ten days, both the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and “where appropriate” the Government would have time to rule “on the petitions that are pending on such high magistracies”, and stresses that the reasons humanitarian “in one case” and legal in another “are really exceptional”.
Ensures that the Court knows that the family “He has not presented a generic pardon or one without grounds, but a well-founded and exceptional request for partial pardon based on humanitarian and equity reasons”and recalls that “it is not usual and can be described as exceptional” that two Supreme Court magistrates defend with their individual votes “the non-existence of the crime that entails deprivation of liberty”, alluding to embezzlement.
“How should the damage caused by entering prison be classified if after a reasonable time -which we estimate in three months- it turned out that it should not have occurred, either because partial pardon was granted or because the nullity issue was upheld or, eventually, the request for amparo?” asks the lawyer in the appeal.
Regarding the “social alarm” that the Court has alleged to deny the suspension, the document indicates that what would really cause alarm is not to wait “just a few months” to “force” the entry into prison of “a 76-year-old septuagenarian , which would ultimately be improper”.
“The courts should attend to the social alarm of good and prudent citizens. The other, populist, is a provoked and always interested social alarm, which is born from feeding the worst feelings of resentment and partisan phobias. This social alarm should not deserve the attention of that Chamber”, underlines the appeal.