La interlocutòria de l'Audiencia provincial de Lleida que sobreseu les denúncies de fills de guardies civils contra professors está molt fonamentada i fa consideracions interessants, com aquest paràgraf:
https://t.co/bnAM6DSX8b
Extract:
... On the other hand, it may be that the communication sent by the relevant schools to the parents informing tthem that on October 3rd there was going to be what was called "closing down of the country [Catalonia]", with classes being suspended, could annoy certain groups; but in no way can it be understood to have formed part of or integrated a discourse whose purpose was not only to spread violence or promote hatred, for it was considered to be merely an act of protest against the events witnessed in Catalonia on October 1, which may be shared or rejected, but that is within the limits of freedom of expression and that certainly does not fall within the scope of coverage of the criminal law of art. 510.1 of the Criminal Code. And in any case, this statement was addressed to families and in no case to minors who, because of their age, were unable even to understand its content. And at this point it is necessary to remember that freedom of expression validates not only the information or ideas received with favour or considered harmless or indifferent, but also for those that annoy, collide with or disturb the State or any part of the population (STDH De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997). And in the same sense, the Supreme Court ruled in its Order of June 7 2013 and its Judgment of April 12 2011, stating in the latter that "the rights to ideological freedom and freedom of expression allow, initially, not only to share any idea, but to express it and even to disseminate it, and accommodate the development of one's own life to it, always with the limits imposed by respectful coexistence with the rights of others.The restriction of such rights, then, and more even the recourse to criminal penalties require, a justification that can only be found, in the words of the TC, when it collides with other defensible legal rights that can be shown to merit greater protection after the necessary and prior weighting work. But it will be necessary that the characteristics of the collision be si great as to justify criminal intervention".And even more so, the Court esteems the lack of any criminal relevance in the communiqué that seems to have been read at the La Salle School, on October 2, in which all types of violence were expressly condemned in an energetic manner, displaying the commitment of the school in promoting education in freedom, respect and dialogue ....
Text sencer [espoanol]: https://catalunya.actualitatpenal.cat/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/06/AP-LLEIDA.-auto-arxiu-docents-La-Seu-dUrgell.pdf
... On the other hand, it may be that the communication sent by the relevant schools to the parents informing tthem that on October 3rd there was going to be what was called "closing down of the country [Catalonia]", with classes being suspended, could annoy certain groups; but in no way can it be understood to have formed part of or integrated a discourse whose purpose was not only to spread violence or promote hatred, for it was considered to be merely an act of protest against the events witnessed in Catalonia on October 1, which may be shared or rejected, but that is within the limits of freedom of expression and that certainly does not fall within the scope of coverage of the criminal law of art. 510.1 of the Criminal Code. And in any case, this statement was addressed to families and in no case to minors who, because of their age, were unable even to understand its content. And at this point it is necessary to remember that freedom of expression validates not only the information or ideas received with favour or considered harmless or indifferent, but also for those that annoy, collide with or disturb the State or any part of the population (STDH De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24 February 1997). And in the same sense, the Supreme Court ruled in its Order of June 7 2013 and its Judgment of April 12 2011, stating in the latter that "the rights to ideological freedom and freedom of expression allow, initially, not only to share any idea, but to express it and even to disseminate it, and accommodate the development of one's own life to it, always with the limits imposed by respectful coexistence with the rights of others.The restriction of such rights, then, and more even the recourse to criminal penalties require, a justification that can only be found, in the words of the TC, when it collides with other defensible legal rights that can be shown to merit greater protection after the necessary and prior weighting work. But it will be necessary that the characteristics of the collision be si great as to justify criminal intervention".And even more so, the Court esteems the lack of any criminal relevance in the communiqué that seems to have been read at the La Salle School, on October 2, in which all types of violence were expressly condemned in an energetic manner, displaying the commitment of the school in promoting education in freedom, respect and dialogue ....
Text sencer [espoanol]: https://catalunya.actualitatpenal.cat/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2018/06/AP-LLEIDA.-auto-arxiu-docents-La-Seu-dUrgell.pdf
... Por otro lado, puede ser que la comunicación remitida por los centros en cuestión a los padres informando de que el día 3 se iba a llevar a cabo la que fue denominada “aturada de país”, con suspensión de las clases, resultara molesta a determinados colectivos; pero en modo alguno puede entenderse que ello formara parte o integrara un discurso cuya finalidad no fuera sino la de propagar la violencia o promover el odio, considerándose simplemente como un mero acto de protesta ante los acontecimientos vividos en Catalunya el día 1 de octubre, que podrá compartirse o rechazarse, pero que se halla dentro de los límites de la libertad de expresión y que desde luego no entran dentro del perímetro de cobertura de la norma penal del art. 510.1 CP. Y es que en todo caso, dicho comunicado iba dirigido a las familias y en ningún caso a los menores, que por su edad, eran incluso incapaces de entender su contenido. Y llegados a este punto es preciso recordar que, la libertad de expresión valida no solamente las informaciones o ideas acogidas con favor o consideradas inofensivas o indiferentes, sino también para aquéllas que contrarían, chocan o inquietan al Estado o a una parte cualquiera de la población (STDH De Haes y Gijsels c. Bélgica, de 24 de febrero de 1997). Y en el mismo sentido se ha pronunciado el Tribunal Supremo en Auto de fecha 7 de junio de 2013 ó sentencia de 12 de abril de 2011 señalando en esta última que "los derechos a la libertad ideológica y a la libertad de expresión permiten, inicialmente, no solo asumir cualquier idea, sino expresarla e, incluso, difundirla, y acomodar a ella el desarrollo de la vida propia, siempre con los límites que impone la convivencia respetuosa con los derechos de los demás. La restricción de tales derechos, pues, y más aún el recurso a la sanción penal, requiere de una justificación que solo se encuentra, en palabras del TC, cuando colisiona con otros bienes jurídicos defendibles que se revelen acreedores de una mayor protección tras la necesaria y previa labor de ponderación. Y no solo eso, sino que será preciso que las características de la colisión sean tales que justifiquen la intervención penal".
Y aún más si cabe, entiende la Sala que carece de relevancia penal alguna, el comunicado que parece ser se leyó en el Centro La Salle, el día 2 de octubre, en el que además expresamente se condenó de forma enérgica todo tipo de violencia, manifestando el compromiso del centro en fomentar la educación en la libertad, el respeto y el diálogo....
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada