Posted: Monday June 28 2021 2:49 PM
The pardons to the prisoners of the trial are still relevant today. The Supreme Court refused to suspend as a precaution the pardons granted by the government to Catalan independence leaders in prison because it did not appreciate the reasons of particular urgency to deal with the said suspension without listening to the public prosecutor on behalf of the ‘executive.
The High Court thus rejected the request of three leaders of Ciudadanos, including their leader, Inés Arrimadas, who requested the very precautionary suspension and their return to prison while the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the case.
The magistrates now order the precautionary incident to be dealt with by the ordinary procedure, in return giving the public prosecutor a period of five days to formulate allegations of suspension requested by the citizens’ representatives.
Among other arguments, the Supreme Court does not consider justified the appellants’ claim that the urgency in the release of the pardoned should correspond to the urgency in the attention of the provisional suspension measure. “This approach does not seem to take due account of the fact that we are in the presence of the fundamental right to liberty of every person, recognized and guaranteed in article 17 of the Constitution, of which no one can be deprived except in the cases and in the the manner provided for by law, in this case by virtue of the corresponding judicial resolution which gives legal cover to the deprivation of liberty of convicted persons, ”the court said.
She adds that, if this judicial cover disappears by means of pardon, the release must be immediate, which was effected by the trial court, without being able to establish the correspondence invoked by the Appellant Citizens with an emergency stay of the situation. of freedom favored by forgiveness, “whose maintenance over time implies only respect for the fundamental right to freedom of which the person can only be deprived in the cases and in the manner provided for by law”.
Likewise, the magistrates underline that the generic invocation made by the appellants to the “possibility” of fleeing the action of justice or of continuing the criminal action, without any justification allowing to appreciate the immediate materialization of such risk, “can hardly be considered sufficient to prove (…) the combination of particular emergency circumstances which justify the sacrifice of the principle of contradiction”.