to read the whole post, if need be. From Schleswig to Trapero
Gonzalo BoyeMadrid.
As in this case the only accusation was made by the Public Prosecutor's Office, it will depend on it whether or not it appeals the judgment. If it does, it should first be appealed before the Appeals chamber of the same National High Court and then, depending on the outcome, an appeal could be lodged before the Supreme Court.
Whatever happens, what is most striking at this moment in time is not the specific procedural trajectory this judgment may have, but rather the trajectory that it will have from a more global perspective, that is, how it will affect the set of proceedings that were opened following October 1 2017. This is where it may be most important, for several reasons.
What this judgment has shown, among other things, is that a different, more objective, democratic, and adjusted assessment of the evidence leads, inevitably, to a very different result from that laid down by the Supreme Court. This is precisely what the Schleswig-Holstein High Court ruled in July 2018 and which angered the Supreme Court and all full-blooded bracelet-bearing patriots.
The facts, those for which nine people are serving sentences today, do not amount to a crime and a conviction can only be understood as a result of a very special and erroneous assessment of the evidence, which is what the Supreme Court did, and which is causing so much pain.
When a judgment is predetermined, for whatever reason, the assessment of the evidence always deviates from the legally established rules for this jurisdictional function, and the result of necessity ends up being erroneous and therefore unfair. On the other hand, when the rules of logic, of healthy criticism, are followed, and assessed on the basis of rational criteria acceptable to an average citizen, then a correct result is reached, whether it be a conviction or an acquittal.
The judgment of judges Sáez and Vieira is an example of a correct assessment of the evidence and, without going into details, a good example is how they approach the huge number of videos of the events of October 1, 2017.
On these videos, they both conclude: "These documents are an anecdote of what could have happened during October 1 in hundreds of polling stations. They are hard to understand and only allow one to learn about the climate of tension that was experienced".
And - guess what! - the conclusion reached by the Schleswig-Holstein court, after viewing the 72 videos sent to them by Judge Llarena, was identical and stated that the videos did not allow any criminal conduct to be established.
The surprise is not that these two courts share the same assessment, but that another court that boasts of being so knowledgeable and impartial does not see things the same way and, moreover, gives them a totally opposite and criminalizing character. The explanation, in all probability, is in the way the law is understood and in the way it has been used to implant a particular political vision rather than to do justice.
Nor do the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations and the Brussels Council Chamber stray far from these positions as reards what is behind the persecution of the pro-independence Catalans and, sooner or later, a clear picture will emerge of something we have been saying for over 3 years.
To put it more clearly: from below and from above, or from inside and from outside, it is beginning to be shown that the conception upheld by the Supreme Court and its most ardent supporters, about the events of October 1 2017 does not match reality and, moreover, these deeds are far from being criminal.
The acquittal of Trapero, Laplana, Soler and Puig will obviously not bring about immediate consequences for those convicted in the trial; to say otherwise would be misleading, but it is already producing them in relation to the judicial construction set up to repress the pro-independence supporters, and this on its own is very positive.
Manhy believed that once the Supreme Court established proven facts and subsumed them into concrete rules, no court would be able to contradict it. On this point they were wrong, for any judge and court must be free and independent in assessing the evidence and reaching their conclusions, in this case acquittals.
On top of all the above, this judgment paves the way for other judges who want to act with independence, rationality and intellectual honesty, without side-glancing at the Supreme Court, to reach similar conclusions when it comes to trying the over 2,850 retaliated people awaiting trial in relation to the events of October 1, 2017.
The First of October was not a succession of crimes, but a broad, massive and collective democratic exercise, which only those who live anchored in a past - which has to be get rid of as soon as possible - can conceive as criminal, and this can no longer be seen just in Europe. Surely this is the most important contribution of a judgment that, as I say, is fair, not because (or not just because) of the acquittals, but also because it respects fundamental rights and basic democratic principles.
And this is so because the sentence also reminds us of something we have been preaching for too long a time: our legal system also includes the rules issued within the European Union and which guarantee our rights and freedoms, such as those contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In short, from Schleswig to Trapero it is being made evident that no matter how much politics is dragged into the courts, in the end, when there is honesty, law ends up putting everything in its place.
...ooo000ooo...
See also:
Vicenç Villatoro, "The Cornerstone": https://estudiscatalans.blogspot.com/2020/10/villatoro-trapero-pedra-angular-22-oct.html
A thread by Carlos E. Bayo: https://estudiscatalans.blogspot.com/2020/10/thread-by-carlos-enrique-bayo-23-oct.html
Cap comentari:
Publica un comentari a l'entrada