This is proof of reading Vilaweb amb veu sintètica articles, which will soon be available to subscribers of the newspaper. Subscribe-to-her here.
Last week, the UN Human Rights Council condemned the Spanish state for violating the political rights of the President Carlos Puigdemontas before Oriol Junqueras, Josep Rull, Jordi Turull and Raül Romeva. To understand the meaning of the opinion and the impact on parliament Joaquin Uríaswho is an expert on constitutional law and legal documents of the Constitutional Court of Spain (TC) between 2014 and 2010. Asís mesmos, also spoke to them about the electoral controversy with EH Bildu il’indicted Judit Martín, Jair Domínguez and Toni Soler to gag TV3 under the edge of Rocío.
—What is the importance of the opinion of the UN Human Rights Council on Carles Puigdemont?
—The Human Rights Council has issued an opinion, which is very similar to a sentence, which happens to be an advisory body, and therefore has no direct legal value. In cases like these, they analyze the affair with maximum objectivity and issue a well-founded legal opinion. Now, the value given to orientation Spain, is not a strict sentence, but, without a doubt, it reflects the legal position of the international organization regarding the violations of Puigdemont’s rights.
—And who is important tea?
—What happened during the issuance of the process is that the Spanish judicial bodies did not act on the issues related to the process with the independence and neutrality they need. In this sense, the function of the ruling is that an international body, from a neutral position and not involved in Spanish politics, declares that there is a very clear violation of rights committed by the judges.
—The Consul has given the Spanish state 180 days to take the necessary steps to repair the damage. What am I waiting for?
— In these ore cases, one volt is solving the question, it is not possible to grant it sortie, because it has been fought over time. It is not mandatory to comply with the opinion of the Council, but today it is considered impossible to recover Puigdemont’s rights. He will be prosecuted for rebellion for such deprivation, jointly with his voters, of his political rights. This, cinc years apresos, no té remei. It is not for Puigdemont to stand it again to play the investiture.
—What is your value on the dilatatory strategy of the Spanish state in international situations?
—In these cases, like those judged by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Spanish state tries to play all the cards because a possible criticism or an unpleasant ruling remains unenforced. It is clear that one of their weapons is to expand the terms to the maximum, so that they lose meaning and the reversals of the international bodies are not effective beyond the symbolic and written confirmation of a violation of rights.
—Last August to issue a similar ruling regarding the violation of the rights of Junqueras, Rull, Turull in Romeva. L’estat espanyol va fer com si sientís ploure. Wouldn’t the Human Rights Council have coercive capacity?
—Honestly, it is very difficult for a state to know, like Spain or any other state, that there are organisms with coercive capacity. Ho veig complicat, de fet, fins tot les sentences del Tribunal Europeu de Drets Humans tenen and compliment multiple difús. It is not the same that the Spanish court gives the obligation to fulfill, per dir-ho in a way. I believe that it is very difficult to change this and I would like to say that it is impossible in the current world. As he said, the pronouncement of the Consul is of great importance because it leaves the country, with a neutral legal analysis, that the Spanish judiciary has ignored violations of rights, which casts doubt on its independence in cases of with the process.
—Apart from state maneuvers, rulings like this one can help judicial cases before the ECtHR and the CJUE to promote revenge, right?
—I have the understanding that the sentences of the European Court of Human Rights will begin, finally and completely, with a cascade of decisions from now on, which will in many cases award the cause to the independent leaders of the process, that especially the violation. of political rights. It is clear that during all the judicial persecution, you will feel that the fundamental rights need to be respected. Spanish judges will protect the Spanish unit before it arrives. I believe that this cascade will begin, but the length of time between the fets will leave it so that the political consequences are still scarce.
—We don’t have to wait for the rest of the Spanish state, donsc…
—There is an important measure that we could demand among all, it does not affect the politics of Catalonia that much, that is the repeal of article 384 bis. This rule is to introduce an almost exceptional situation, during the fight against ETA terrorism, and, apparently, it is contrary to the constitution. The Constitutional Court does not see that, but I doubt it very much, because it allows a person to lose their political rights if a judge prosecutes them for crimes of terrorism or rebellion. It is a rule that clearly violates the presumption of innocence.
—Judgment does not necessarily mean criticism.
—Precisely, in the case of Puigdemont and in the rest of the process, the abuse of this rule is more than clear. They will accept political rights after being prosecuted by the Supreme Court for rebellion, but they will not condemn a pass for this crime. Therefore, they are innocent and, tanmateix, they have irrevocably lost their rights. What is neguiteja is that the gate was there because the Spanish government annulled the political rights of the contestants when I considered it timely. Just a charge of rebellion. The direct consequence of the opinion of the Consell hauria is the repeal of 384 bis.
—What will the vice president of Spain show? Nadia Calvino How will he say that the opinion implied that Puigdemont had to return to the Spanish state because he was jutjat?
—These are political reactions, within legal limits. The politicians, the ministers, the fans, give answers and opinions according to their interests, but they are not legal. Calviño’s words contain one more opinion, as justifiable as any other. I don’t think it deserves more thought.
—In the lawsuit against the Human Rights Council, Puigdemont’s defense was also denied violation of rights of association and freedom of expression about including the frustrated investment. What did I think?
—The destitution of the condition of the representative is a very clear thing. Li van troure l’escó sense haver estat condemnat a res. Igno crida l’attenció de licunció international organism, that ho see com una vulneració de drets. However, the interpretation of the parliamentary regulation that the TC is to prevent you from proceeding to a telematic investment… This is really an interpretation – definitely wrong, but an interpretation – of the room’s procedural norms. At this point, all that Puigdemont’s defense said, with reason, that more rights were violated, I understand that the Human Rights Committee did not come into play. If someone suggested that the investment must be face-to-face and not telematic, that does not necessarily mean a clear violation of human rights.
—A change of theme and the end of us in the election campaign, as a former TC lawyer who saw the controversy related to the Bildu lists and the shipping petitions of the litigation?
—I thought it would be bogeria to legitimize Bildu. De fet, face that, fredament, not ho sembli, it is a matter of semblant for the suspension of Puigdemont. Spain is going to endow with some laws and norms of a state of exception for such a fight against terrorism, among which is the law of parties, but in normal cases they are not enough to serve. Gradually, tret d’alguns who have gestures in front of the gallery, étí i tot la dreta ha intés que es no pot pediran la il·legalització de Bildu, que es un partit legal and legitim. Oimés, tenin in compte that gave me the opportunity to lead, in the democratic way, then will be in another moment with armed force. In the end, the controversy is the usual pre-election controversy.
—And concretely about them lists you?
—Això crec that’s another thing. That people convicted of vaginal blood offenses have ethical or moral implications. This affects Bildu i crec go s’ha fet self-criticism. Indeed, ells themselves have said that they will not take over if elected. Either way, open the focus and go further. Hi hallistes amb ultradretans criticism for making efforts during the transition or d’altres kanteora per violìà contra les dones. I understand that they are legal cases, but from an ethical point of view they create a lot of doubt.
—And finally, a later case, what do you think about the indictment of Judit Martín, Jair Dominguez and Toni Soler for a gag on the edge of Rocío?
—I think it is disbarat and the judge is wrong. Not only that in the case, but also that it is wrong in the way of serving the ordinary proceedings. The interlocutoria is a legal disbarat. Authentic legal disbarat. According to Spanish criminal law, it is not mandatory to process a lawsuit that represents a crime. In these cases, there is clearly no cap. In addition, they stated not to affirm but the objective of the citizen who exercises the right to express opinions to frighten and discourage. Mes tea cap didn’t work. At the moment they declare that they will be left in freedom and the case will be arxivarà, because there is no money. To force them to compare, to put them under force and to put them under the pressure of a lawsuit, I believe you have no other end than to punish them. I ajjo és a disbarat, an error, and the jutgessa has no legal basis for fer-ho.
—In the break she talks about countless injuries…
—Who is the injury? There is no sensitivity that is adapted to the gag. It is not a pot to insult the edge. She was very impressed that the judge called them to testify because she thinks she always has to summon the accused when there is a legal case. But no, and it is the one that s’acconsegueix that any group is envalenteixi and committed to fotre the life of the people. It is appalling that some judges, because of personal or ideological affinity, are cooperating with each other. Christian lawyers lose almost all cases, but they are all the same. Because they are flying it forces people to go through the judgmental ordeal.