Photo: The writ by the Supreme Court judge, on Speaker Carme Forcadell and the remainder of the cabinet
By Quico Sallés
November 10, 2017
The Supreme Court judge who is investigating the case against members of the Parliamentary Committee, Pablo Llarena, stated that their “leadership” is key to justifying his ruling of remand into custody, with bail, which he wrote up on Thursday. It is this leadership which he states could “spread” the “violent seed” of the Catalan process. As an example of the “seed”, Llarena collects and interprets various actions that have taken place in the process such as “street occupation with tractors”, “isolation” or “seiges” of the police or the civil guard; barricades; “threats to employers providing services to the state”; or even that the voters on October 1 forced the police to “use force”.
His writ, 26 pages long, develops this thesis to argues “the presence of all the elements which justify the charge of rebellion” which the Prosecutor is putting forward in his complaint [against the government ministers]. The judge’s conclusion is that the ministers members “intended to use violent public uprising” as described by the definition of rebellion. In fact, he goes on to assert “that it we must exclude the possibility that the defendants aspire to independence by legal means”.
“It has never been possible to justify the defendants claims regarding the legal correctness of their process, given the numerous resolutions of the Constitutional Court ruling it contradicted with legal process”, emphasized the instructor in the resolution. He adds: “It is obvious that the promoters of the independence process will never see their ideals prosper through a legal path.” “The idea of their acting in legality is simply unreal” added the magistrate.
Because the judge argues that the independence process is legally and legislatively impossible, he argues that independence could therefore only be achieved by a “citizen mobilization which required the permanence of a newly imposed order, showing a general and explicit determination, whilst being unyielding in the face of any proposed alternative.” He stressed that there is a “coordination and machinations” between the Government, Parliament and citizen mobilization forces; a mobilization that could be “instrumentalized” so that it “forces political recognition from the [Spanish] state, as was its intention all along”.
The judge goes on to argue that the term “violent” does not require injurious acts or damage, but rather “when a force is exposed and a willingness to use it is displayed”. “The uprising aims unequivocally to intimidate legally constituted powers,” the judge claimed. In fact, he considers that the “civility” of the demonstrations does not hide the “many stigmas that exist and many aggressive behaviors which have infiltrated the movement”.
“Under these conditions, the accusation that these promoters of independence could have used these violent focus points, along with a large peaceful mobilization, as the spark to cause an eventual social explosion, which they could then modulate and use as coercive violence to achieve their ends” said the judge.
In any case, Forcadell receives the worst of the ruling for “her meddling interventions throughout the long process” and “because of the intense repercussions of her leadership during the various phases of this process.” A leadership which “contributes a social, administrative and institutional significance of a higher order than that which can be attributed to the rest of the defendants”.
In any case, the judge didn’t seem highly concerned about Forcadell’s fleeing the country, and hence allowed for her to leave remanded custody on condition of paying a bail bond [of €150,000], because she has always appeared before the courts in the past, “unlike others who flee”, he said, making reference to President Carles Puigdemont and his five counsellors, exiled in Brussels. Finally, Llarena concluded by stating that this is not about “the defendants accepting article 155″ , but rather that they must either “renounce future political activity” or “those who wish to continue acting as politicians, must renounce any action outside the constitutional framework”.