The magistrates maintain that the ‘councillor’ and the other three members of the accused Parliament Board had no intention of ignoring the Constitutional Court and that the warnings from this body were not clear, not specific
The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has acquitted the ‘conseller’ of Business and former president of the Parliament, Roger Torrent, of the crime of disobedience of which he was accused of having processed two resolutions in October 2019 in which the right to self-determination and disapproved of the King. The court has also acquitted his former colleagues at the Table of the Catalan Chamber Josep Costa (JxCat), Eusebi Campdepadrós (JxCat) and Adriana Delgado (ERC). The reason: lack of a “clear” and “specific” mandate in the Constitutional Court rulings that warned them that they could be violating their mandate, as well as the lack of intention to disobey. The resolution has a particular vote of the magistrate Marta Pesqueira who considers that the defendants should be sentenced.
The court ruling, endorsed by magistrates Carlos Mir and Francisco Segura, maintains that the Constitutional warning orders of October 10 and 16, 2019 allowed more than one interpretation and that “it has not been proven” that the defendants were aware of and wanted to disobey the mandates of the high constitutional magistracy. On the other hand, he understands that the four defendants followed the instructions of the Secretary General of Parliament and the Chamber’s senior lawyer.
The court stresses that the Constitutional warnings of October 10 and 16 They refer to the execution of certain sentences that are not on agreements of the Board, which it describes as an “administrative nature” body, but rather on resolutions of the Parliament, and that its interpretation is not “univocal”. It also highlights that the parliamentary body took into account the reports of the secretary general and the senior lawyer that “they are not politicians”, but “objective and impartial officials”. Its “motivated” resolutions dismissed the reconsiderations carried out by other parliamentary groups against the initial agreements to admit the proposals for processing.
The sentence warns that the actions attributed to the defendants now exculpated have nothing to do with those of their predecessors, who were convicted and who will sit on the bench again by order of the Supreme Court
Interpretation
According to a “teleological interpretation” and “not strictly literal or formal”, argues the TSJC, “it can be understood -and it is not arbitrary- that what the Constitutional Court was really prohibiting” was to continue “the political process of independence” initiated with the rupture resolution of 2015, and wanting to “materialize or exercise” self-determination, that is to say the secession of Catalonia, as well as continuing to “reject King Felipe VI” for his speech following the 1-0. But it specifies that with the resolutions that were admitted for processing “simply” and “only” it was intended to “talk” about self-determination as “mere political proclamation, for the future, but without the intention of materializing it” in a new legislature. The court highlights that before the start of the ‘procés’ there were already Constitutional decisions that allowed “talking about the right to decide in the abstract.”
The magistrates indicate that the defendants took into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, especially one in which it is stated that “the independence of Catalonia, the monarchical form of the State and criticism of the King” are issues of “public interest” and the debate on it is “protected” by the right to freedom of expression . With respect to the monarchy, the European judges also declared that “the fact that the King is not subject to responsibility, under the Spanish Constitution, particularly in the criminal sphere, should not be, by itself, an obstacle to the free debate on his eventual institutional responsibility” as head of state, “within the limits of respect for his reputation as a person”.
Not one crime, not another
The TSJC clarifies that “in no case can it be said” that the defendants were aware of and wanted to disobey the Constitutional mandate and, therefore, it is not possible to punish even for a crime of “future disobedience”for imprudence”, because it does not exist, nor for any other typology, since, in his opinion, it has not been proven that the former members of the Board “openly” refused to comply with the Constitutional mandates. Of course, he rejects the prerogative of parliamentary inviolability.
The sentence points out that “it is important to show” that the performance of the Parliamentary Committee directed by Torrent are “absolutely different” from that of the previous legislature, with Carmen Forcadell to the front, and whose members were condemned by the TSJC. This is a notice to sailors about the decision of the Supreme Court to repeat the trial against Lluís Corominas, Anna Simó, Ramona Barrufet and Lluís Guinó, sentenced to 20 months of disqualification and to pay a fine of 30,000 euros, for ignoring the resolutions of the Constitutional Court that vetoed the processing of disconnection laws.
“The debate cannot be prohibited”
“No debate can be prohibited in Parliament,” nor “the Constitutional Court for matters of public interest,” said the Business Minister. Torrent affirmed in his statement before the judges that the Board of Parliament exercises “real political neutrality” and does not enter into the content of the initiatives. His mission, he specified, is “merely formal control” of the proposals. This supervision is based, he added, both on the Parliament’s regulations, as well as on the protection of fundamental rights and international treaties.
The judicial process stems from a complaint filed by the Superior Prosecutor of Catalonia in March 2020 and which was subsequently admitted by the TSJC, estimating that the facts detailed in the public accusation presented, “a priori, a criminal appearance” Before Following the filing of this lawsuit, the Constitutional Court unanimously agreed to require the prosecutor’s office to study whether Torrent and his fellow officers had committed a crime of disobedience. And it is that the Constitutional Court had required “individually and personally” the members of the Board their “duty to prevent or paralyze any parliamentary initiative that would mean ignoring or evading the agreed suspension,” according to the prosecution.
warned
Related news
The public accusation maintained Torrent, Campdepadrós and Costa, “being aware of the content and the warnings” of the Constitutional Court of previous days, “and despite the opposition of the rest of the members of the Table” and the notice of the general secretary of the Chamber , accepted in October 2019 to process two resolutions on the Monarchy and the right to self-determination, approved in November of that year by the members of Parliament. Delgado only participated in one of those proceedings.
The prosecution stressed that, days before the approval, the four defendants dismissed the requests for reconsideration made by opposition groups and “ratified” the admission of the texts for processing. “Torrent, being aware” of the challenge by the central Executive and “knowing” that the Constitutional Court would immediately agree to the suspension of the processing of the motion, decided to modify “the time of the start of the plenary session, in his opinion.