Pumpido maneuver in the Constitutional Court so that it can be overridden in the future the judgment of the 1-Or

The Supreme court opposes pardon those convicted for the siege of the ParlamentMas enters the TSJC embraced by some 3,000 people The judge of the Constitutiona

Pumpido maneuver in the Constitutional Court so that it can be overridden in the future the judgment of the 1-Or
The Supreme court opposes pardon those convicted for the siege of the ParlamentMas enters the TSJC embraced by some 3,000 people

The judge of the Constitutional Court Cándido Conde-Pumpido , attorney general of the State during all the stage of Government of the socialist José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has finalized the drafting of a judgment with which, a priori, is intended to protect and acquit the eight people who were convicted in April of 2015 to three years in prison for the episodes of violence that have occurred in the siege of the Catalan Parliament in June 2011.

This paper Conde-Pumpido will be debated by the plenary of the TC in the next few weeks, and it is not expected that the deliberations and the final decision are known before the Supreme Court released its judgment against the coup of the 1-O. however, the presentation of Conde-Pumpido, developed already from the past month of June, it is generating internal tensions in the Court not only by the repudiation it would be for the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme, and his conviction for that assault on the Parliament, but because of the de facto contribute to the drafting of a new constitutional doctrine on the concept of "violence" . This thesis could leave without effect the arguments that the Supreme court may adopt in its ruling against Oriol Junqueras, and the other leaders of Catalan courts, in the course of which they were convicted for rebellion.

to Validate acts of violence

the concern in The bosom of the TC for the maneuver in Conde-Pumpido is growing to the extent that cover eight assailants of the Catalan Chamber would validate acts of violence against a democratic institution, as it is a regional Parliament. Furthermore, if this failure of the TC occurs before the Supreme court delivers its judgement on Junqueras and the rest of accused of golpismo, it would create a greater problem to the extent that the Supreme court must still decide whether, for example, the attempt of assault to the department of Economy of Catalonia, prior to the referendum illegal "independence" organized by Carles Puigdemont in 2017, is incardinable in a crime of rebellion. It would be like the TC condicionara previously, and to pressure mode, the deliberation of the Supreme, without even waiting for his sentence. This would create the risk of a conflict institutional severe.

According to has been able to know ABC, the proposed final judgment in Conde-Pumpido -with the rejection of several judges of the TC, and that, given their complexity and contentiousness has been forwarded to the Plenary of the twelve judges- argues that in 2015 the Supreme court violated the rights of assembly, demonstration and political participation of activists from 15-M gathered at the gates of the Parliament in 2011.

In that year, thousands of people gathered in front of the Catalan institution preventing violent way the access of the deputies to hold a vote. The climate of outrage citizen by that time was maximum, and the situation is desbocó to the point that the president of the Generalitat, Artur Mas, was only able to enter the premises of the Parliament in a helicopter.


Those images in the June 15, 2011 were issued all over the world, and the episode ended with six detainees, and 45 slightly wounded, 18 of them mossos dEsquadra. At that time, Conde-Pumpido, in his capacity of attorney-general, said publicly that the Prosecution was going to respond with "zero tolerance", he called the protests "a direct attack on the institutions", and said verbatim that "violence is not acceptable in any democratic system." Today, however, as a member of the TC, it raises the convicted are protected and acquitted against the judgement of the Supreme, and to rule out the application of the legal concept of "violence" to that case. His shift of emphasis is noticeable, even more so when being attorney-general, promoted firmly the conviction of the accused.

The court records of this case were conflicting.

In the first instance, the National court acquitted 18 of the 19 defendants who went to trial . They were accused of offences against the institutions of the State, attack and illicit association. Only one of the defendants was convicted of a misdemeanor, and not felony, but the court did split. Two judges Manuela Fernández and Ramón Sáez, imposed the criterion of absolution to the other judge, Fernando Grande Marlaska, today minister of the Interior with Pedro Sanchez. After the exculpation of the accused, in February 2015 was the Prosecution that requested the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme that a repetition of the trial in order to condemn them.

Change of criterion

in April of that same year, the Supreme court itself overturned the decision of the court and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment to eight of the persons previously acquitted for a crime against the institutions of the State. The editor of that ruling was Manuel Marchena, every time the speaker initial, the judge Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez, was in the minority because it intended to maintain the acquittal of the accused. So, the convicted persons appealed to the TC , which now seems extremely fractured, and with widely different opinions to those of Conde-Pumpido.

indeed, in the bosom of the TC is the striking change of opinion of this judge because after that it should be shown publicly disagree with the acquittal decreed by the Hearing, and after holding that there was violence and challenge the permissiveness of a siege like the one that occurred at the Parliament, intended to now reduce those acts to a mere act of freedom of demonstration. Or legitimate action of protest politics citizen. Extrapolating this criterion to what happened in the days leading up to the 1-O and the query is illegal, which concluded with the declaration of Catalonia as a "republic" in 2017, that doctrine could reach to leave you defenseless to the Supreme to justify now a hypothetical sentence for rebellion.

Sacrifice of the freedom

As has been known to ABC, the presentation of Conde-Pumpido considered that the storming of the Parlament of 2011, taking into account the context of social upheaval against the political class that has occurred, is the normal exercise of a fundamental right as is manifest. Therefore, the sentence issued by the Supreme of three years in prison would not only be disproportionate, but that could result in a sacrificing of freedom, so that we would discourage in the future to other citizens in order to exercise the rights of assembly and demonstration.

Conde-Pumpido also believes that the Supreme court condemned in consideration of the purpose of the attackers to prevent the development of the parliamentary activity, but that legal fact would be valued before in the acquittal of the National Audience, so that the Supreme court should not revise or correct something that was not tried. In short, Conde-Pumpido posed an amendment to the full against the judgment handed down by Marchena in your time , expresses a change of criteria that some sources of the TC branded "inexplicable and inconsistent", and intended to lay the groundwork for that in your day can be revoked any failure by rebellion to the accused of the 1-O.

The TS addresses the Audience

In fact, the difference of interpretation between the National court and the Supreme on the events that have occurred in the siege of the Parliament is radical. Where the Audience, and now also Conde-Pumpido, was an act of freedom of expression enshrined in the right of meeting, the Supreme saw a collision blatant of that right with the other higher and of more weight : "the right of participation of the citizens, through their legitimate representatives in the legislative body".

For the Supreme court, it was evident that besiege the Parliament and impede by force and coercion the access of the deputies could not be a legal argument to "neutralize" other rights that are indispensable for the validity of the constitutional system. "Paralyse the regular work of the legislative body (...) -added the Supreme - is to attack the higher values of the democratic order". The damned, quite simply, helped to strengthen the violence and intimidation suffered by the deputies from the autonomous region, but now Conde-Pumpido disagree that criterion.

Risk of fracture in CT

The risk of fracture in the CT scan is notable because Conde-Pumpido is intended to drag a number of justices of the progressive tendency in a Court which, from time to time this part had conjured -with success - to address the judgments that are politically charged and divisive from the unanimity. And without offering cracks that might be considered ideological, or could put at risk the unity of a criterion against any attack on the institutions.

In this sense, the role of the chairman of the TC, Juan José González Rivas , is considered a determining factor, but on this occasion it seems insufficient as from the conservative faction of the Court attributed to him a certain deference and permissiveness of legal debates that were closed a long time ago and that now offer an image of division is very unfavorable compared to the essential questions as the defence of the State.

Date Of Update: 25 September 2019, 07:03

Yorum yapabilmek için üye girişi yapmanız gerekmektedir.

Üye değilseniz hemen üye olun veya giriş yapın.