A translation into English (by M.S.) of "Prisión sin sentencia, pena anticipada. ¿Una excepcionalidad?", an article published by four political prisoners from Lledoners gaol: Jordi Sànchez, Joaquim Forn, Jordi Turull and Josep Rull, on 26/10/2018. I hope the authors, their representatives and the newspaper have no objection.
Click here
if need be
Original article: https://m.eldiario.es/tribunaabierta/Prision-sentencia-pena-anticipada-excepcionalidad_6_829127090.html
Jordi Sànchez / Joaquim Forn / Jordi Turull / Josep Rull
26 Oct 2018 21:33
A year ago the first pretrial detentions were decreed for various members of social organisations and the government of Catalonia and the Speaker of the Parliament. Many days, many hours in captivity, without having been convicted, without having been tried, without having been heard by the courts on the heart of the matter.
Of course, we have had several opportunities to appear before the examining judge, or even before the Supreme Court appeals chamber, but only to discuss petitions for freedom, the inappropriateness of upholding pre-trial prison stays, never to go to the heart of the matter or the defence of our acts or the demonstration of the non-existence of offences.
Based on the full conviction of our innocence, that there were no violent acts, on the legitimacy of our political action and on the defence of ideas by democratic and peaceful ways, we say that we are being subjected to a prison sentence, without a verdict, which generates a violation of the presumption of innocence.
Beyond the personal hardship that this situation causes, beyond the suffering of relatives - the loss of bonds with young children and parents -, the submission to this anticipated, exceptional and disproportionate punishment amounts to a breakdown of the system of judicial guarantees that obviously affects not only the people being investigated in the special case of the Supreme Court, but also the more than 7,000 people in Spain who are in the same situation. A measure that was envisaged as being exceptional affects a very high percentage of the 60,000 inmates in Spain.
Some of us have been in pretrial modules. We have shared captivity with dozens of people who have been waiting to be tried for up to four years. We have been direct witnesses of punishments been advanced, without trial, through pretrial detention, of alomst literal storage, human beings who are victims of the overload of the coruts and a very poor functioning that ends up violating the basic right to freedom, to the presumption of innocence or to effective judicial protection. A disgrace that ought to be questioned by the citizenry as a whole.
The level of discretion that the investigating judges have in ordering entry into prison, or in resolving petitions for release, is very high. This degree of discretion - the inexistence of norms to regulate the conditions and to establish certain regulated requirements - clashes frontally with the protection of the fundamental right to freedom, a pillar of any advanced democracy.
Let us recall that the measure of pretrial detention can only be decided when it is objectively necessary and there are no other measures less damaging for the right to freedom through which the same ends as with pretrial detention can be achieved.
And the question is this: if, as expressed in the various Supreme Court's writs, it is believed that there is a risk of flight (a risk that is hard to perceive given the behaviour of those of us who have been incarcerated, having gone punctually and rigorously to all the court summonses), are there not, in the 21st century, measures to ensure the elimination of this risk? The answer is clear. They do exist.
As far as criminal repetition is concerned, one of the reasons pointed out by Judge Llarena to justify our staying in prison are our sovereignist ideas, an ideology that coexists "in a political context in which there is no certainty that the intention to achieve the independence of Catalonia has disappeared". That is, we are in pretrial detention for our political ideas, for not renouncing Catalonia's right to self-determination.
Depriving pretrial inmates of our freedom also limits our defence tools and mechanisms. Not only do the accumulated months leave a mark on our bodies and our minds, but they tip the balance of forces. The prosecutors (Prosecutor's Office, Vox and the State's legal services) will have prepared the trial under circumstances very different to ours, without time limitation, without limitation of instruments, without technical limitations. This amounts to a breach of the principle of equality.
A discretionary decision of an examining judge therefore directly affects, at first sight, four fundamental rights: freedom, the presumption of innocence, equality and the right to a trial with all guarantees. When exceptionality becomes the rule, the use of pretrial detention becomes an abuse.
Until new rules - a profound change in the conception of this custodial measure - come into force, we will continue to show, whenever we have the chance, that there are innocent people in gaol, that we are not satisfied with this anticipated punishment to which we are being submitted and, lastly, that in the end the system fails when an acquittal is decided. They will certainly not compensate for the damage suffered, but they may well help avoid similar situations in the future.
Click here
if need beOriginal article: https://m.eldiario.es/tribunaabierta/Prision-sentencia-pena-anticipada-excepcionalidad_6_829127090.html
Prison without a verdict: a pretrial punishment. Is it exceptional?
Until new rules come into force, we shall continue to show that there are innocent people in prisonJordi Sànchez / Joaquim Forn / Jordi Turull / Josep Rull
26 Oct 2018 21:33
A year ago the first pretrial detentions were decreed for various members of social organisations and the government of Catalonia and the Speaker of the Parliament. Many days, many hours in captivity, without having been convicted, without having been tried, without having been heard by the courts on the heart of the matter.
Of course, we have had several opportunities to appear before the examining judge, or even before the Supreme Court appeals chamber, but only to discuss petitions for freedom, the inappropriateness of upholding pre-trial prison stays, never to go to the heart of the matter or the defence of our acts or the demonstration of the non-existence of offences.
Based on the full conviction of our innocence, that there were no violent acts, on the legitimacy of our political action and on the defence of ideas by democratic and peaceful ways, we say that we are being subjected to a prison sentence, without a verdict, which generates a violation of the presumption of innocence.
Beyond the personal hardship that this situation causes, beyond the suffering of relatives - the loss of bonds with young children and parents -, the submission to this anticipated, exceptional and disproportionate punishment amounts to a breakdown of the system of judicial guarantees that obviously affects not only the people being investigated in the special case of the Supreme Court, but also the more than 7,000 people in Spain who are in the same situation. A measure that was envisaged as being exceptional affects a very high percentage of the 60,000 inmates in Spain.
Some of us have been in pretrial modules. We have shared captivity with dozens of people who have been waiting to be tried for up to four years. We have been direct witnesses of punishments been advanced, without trial, through pretrial detention, of alomst literal storage, human beings who are victims of the overload of the coruts and a very poor functioning that ends up violating the basic right to freedom, to the presumption of innocence or to effective judicial protection. A disgrace that ought to be questioned by the citizenry as a whole.
The level of discretion that the investigating judges have in ordering entry into prison, or in resolving petitions for release, is very high. This degree of discretion - the inexistence of norms to regulate the conditions and to establish certain regulated requirements - clashes frontally with the protection of the fundamental right to freedom, a pillar of any advanced democracy.
Let us recall that the measure of pretrial detention can only be decided when it is objectively necessary and there are no other measures less damaging for the right to freedom through which the same ends as with pretrial detention can be achieved.
And the question is this: if, as expressed in the various Supreme Court's writs, it is believed that there is a risk of flight (a risk that is hard to perceive given the behaviour of those of us who have been incarcerated, having gone punctually and rigorously to all the court summonses), are there not, in the 21st century, measures to ensure the elimination of this risk? The answer is clear. They do exist.
As far as criminal repetition is concerned, one of the reasons pointed out by Judge Llarena to justify our staying in prison are our sovereignist ideas, an ideology that coexists "in a political context in which there is no certainty that the intention to achieve the independence of Catalonia has disappeared". That is, we are in pretrial detention for our political ideas, for not renouncing Catalonia's right to self-determination.
Depriving pretrial inmates of our freedom also limits our defence tools and mechanisms. Not only do the accumulated months leave a mark on our bodies and our minds, but they tip the balance of forces. The prosecutors (Prosecutor's Office, Vox and the State's legal services) will have prepared the trial under circumstances very different to ours, without time limitation, without limitation of instruments, without technical limitations. This amounts to a breach of the principle of equality.
A discretionary decision of an examining judge therefore directly affects, at first sight, four fundamental rights: freedom, the presumption of innocence, equality and the right to a trial with all guarantees. When exceptionality becomes the rule, the use of pretrial detention becomes an abuse.
Until new rules - a profound change in the conception of this custodial measure - come into force, we will continue to show, whenever we have the chance, that there are innocent people in gaol, that we are not satisfied with this anticipated punishment to which we are being submitted and, lastly, that in the end the system fails when an acquittal is decided. They will certainly not compensate for the damage suffered, but they may well help avoid similar situations in the future.
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada