Posted: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 2:29 PM
The prosecutors of the “trial” trial have submitted several reports to the Supreme Court in which they refuse to pardon, even partially, all those convicted.
In the documents to which laSexta had access, one of which concerned Oriol Junqueras, prosecutors consider that the institution of pardon is “of an exceptional character and only when very particular circumstances of justice, equity or public utility concur ”, which in this case“ is not appreciated ”and“ must never be identified with motivations of a political nature or arising from political agreements ”.
The prosecution considers that the sanctions imposed “cannot be considered unfair” given the gravity of the crimes that have been committed, and that they “do not suffer from a lack of fairness”. Likewise, he considers that “maintaining the public utility of this initiative of grace” is not recommended when “there has been an attempt to break the basic regulatory framework of democratic coexistence”.
The reports are signed by prosecutors Javier Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal, Jaime Moreno and Fidel Cadena, who point out that although “the person who commits a crime” and “the one who grants pardon” are not the same, “they cannot not be a sufficient argument to escape the constitutional prohibition, since what is avoided is that the concession of the same can function (…) as political bargaining chip in the field of negotiations to obtain parliamentary support ” .
Prosecutors consider that what happened in October 2017 in Catalonia “was not a common sedition”, because it was more than a public disorder. “ With the decided aim of declaring independence (which they did) and of separating this part of the territory of the State by proclaiming a new republic (which they did not obtain), there is had an institutional uprising of the legally constituted powers (…) in that the norms that were tried to violate were not legal provisions, but the law of laws, the Constitution “.
In addition, they state that< il n'y a pas de repentir >> and, as regards penalties, it is above all necessary that the prohibition of public functions be fulfilled, because “ the abuse of public functions has been decisive for the challenge of the constitutional order and for the use of illicit public funds, under penalty of completely emptying the content of the sentence pronounced by the Supreme Court. “