dime si estos articulos pueden contener falsedades o no: "despues del te, puedes mirar si esta información te aporta algun dato mas para tu respuesta?: "URL: https://jacobin.com/2021/11/spain-right-wing-supreme-court-democracy-alberto-rodriguez-manuel-marchena
Título: Spain's Right-Wing Supreme Court Is Riding Roughshod Over ... - Jacobin
Fecha de publicación: None

“Trumpism,” our issue focusing on the global right, is out now. Subscribe to our print edition at a discounted rate today.

“The democratic votes cast by thousands of [Spanish citizens] in the Canary Islands are being attacked without any legal basis.” So said former Podemos MP Alberto Rodríguez after he was stripped of his parliamentary seat on October 22. The move came after he was convicted of assaulting a police officer — the dubious result of what was already a highly politicized trial. Even centrist newspaper El País condemned the “political dimension to the case,” claiming that it “further undermines confidence in the judiciary” and gives “the appearance of a political punishment” for a Podemos MP. The conservative majority in the second chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court convicted Rodríguez despite the lack of any physical or visual evidence of the alleged 2014 assault, instead solely relying on the testimony of the accusing police officer. In their dissenting opinion, the two progressive judges on the court insisted that the evidence was “very far” from sufficient for a guilty verdict and that “it is plausible the officer was wrong in identifying” Rodríguez. This affair has also detonated a major crisis in the country’s progressive coalition government, after Congress speaker Meritxell Batet — an MP for Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s Socialist Party (PSOE) — to disqualify Rodríguez as a MP. Unidas Podemos has now demanded Batet’s resignation, accusing her of “fail[ing] to defend the legislative branch from an unacceptable intervention by the judiciary.” Batet has insisted that she had no choice in carrying out what she saw as the Supreme Court’s sentence. But the Congress’s own legal team insisted that the Court’s ruling had only barred Rodríguez from standing in future elections, during the application of his suspended jail term. Ultimately, however, these conflicting positions can only be understood in the context of a relentless lawfare campaign being waged by the upper echelons of the judiciary against the government — and PSOE’s reticence toward confronting such politicized and reactionary judges. Batet’s move came after intense pressure from the chief magistrate in the case, the right-wing Manuel Marchena, who penned a clarification two weeks after the court’s ruling when it looked like the parliament was not going to take any disciplinary action against Rodríguez. Here, Marchena insisted that the ruling had implied that the MP should be disbarred, adding that the Speaker was obliged to act — albeit without explaining why so. For El País, this was an “outlandish conclusion” to draw. But unwilling to engage in a confrontation with the Supreme Court — and with right-wing parties already threatening legal proceedings against her before the same court if Rodríguez was not removed — Batet caved. In prioritizing respectability and suing immediately for peace, she and PSOE have probably only encouraged further attacks from within the judiciary and security forces. These forces, in conjunction with a radicalized parliamentary right and conservative media outlets, are intent on destabilizing both the coalition and the progressive multiparty majority in Congress on which it rests.

A Fabricated Conviction The charges against Rodríguez stem from a series of clashes between protesters and police at a January 2014 anti-government march in Tenerife. But only months later was the then trade unionist informed that he was suspected of assaulting a police officer on the demonstration. Both Rodríguez and other witnesses have insisted he was not present for these clashes, instead placing him six hundred meters away, at the other end of the march. Rodríguez’s fabricated conviction is just one of a string of recent cases targeting left-wing activists and officials which have been based solely on police testimony. The initial investigation stalled, and it was only reopened in 2017 after he had become a Podemos MP, with the Supreme Court then finally green-lighting the trial in early 2021. The officer on whose testimony the case rested claimed that Rodríguez had kicked him on the knee but also admitted in court the supposed kick left no physical mark. In the actual video footage of the confrontations between police and protesters (in which the officer is clearly visible), Rodríguez never appears, and no other officer on the scene was able to identify him as present. “From a strictly legal point of view, the ruling seriously damages the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence,” argues constitutional law professor Joaquin Urias. “A person cannot be convicted of a crime based simply on the testimony of the victim.” He continues: The message the ruling conveys is that when a member of the security forces makes the accusation, the burden of proof is reversed and the accused must prove their innocence. That the conviction came from the Supreme Court means all Spanish judges will now see themselves as within their right to condemn other activists in similar circumstances. This is a particular concern because Rodríguez’s fabricated conviction is just one of a string of recent cases targeting left-wing activists and officials which have been based solely on police testimony (though until now they had at least drawn on multiple sources). In a case very similar to Rodríguez’s, Isa Serra — Podemos’s former chief in the Madrid region — was sentenced to a nineteen-month suspended prison term and was disqualified from public office for a supposed assault on a police officer at a 2014 anti-eviction protest. Her defense team submitted more than a hundred videos showing her nonviolent behavior throughout the protest but the judge sided with the testimony of the officers involved, despite various contradictory statements and incongruences in their evidence. This January down in Zaragoza, a group of six young anti-fascists were sentenced to prison terms of between one and seven years for supposed rioting — which they deny. “There is no evidence [of their involvement] but the only yardstick the judge used to measure the facts was the police testimony, simply presuming its veracity,” insisted one of the youths’ parents. Even Spain’s current deputy prime minister and Unidas Podemos leader Yolanda Díaz only escaped assault charges arising from her participation in a strike protest outside parliament in 2019 because of the strong presence of the national media. The level of coverage ensured the officers’ accusations against her and two of the party’s other MPs could be conclusively rebutted.

Rigging the System The injustice of Rodríguez’s conviction is also a reflection of the bias and political makeup of the court that tried him, with the second chamber of the Supreme Court stacked with loyalists for the right-wing Partido Popular (PP). In a leaked 2019 WhatsApp message at the time of the Catalan independence leaders’ trial for sedition, PP senator Ignacio Cosidó boasted his party could “control [the court] from behind the scenes.” Since Aznar came to power in 1995, the PP have pursued a ruthless strategy of colonizing the judicial system — above all by hijacking the system by which top judges are appointed. The Supreme Court in particular has been a key target for the party. In 1995, the Supreme Court had seven progressive judges and six conservatives, whereas by 2020, the makeup had radically changed with eleven conservatives and only two progressives. This was achieved with a move straight out of the US Republicans’ playbook: blocking the renewal of the official body which appoints top judges (known as the General Council of the Judiciary) whenever the PP finds itself in opposition. Renewal of the council currently requires 60 percent of MP votes — so is only possible if the major parties reach an agreement. Because the PP refuses to do so, it can unconstitutionally maintain control of judicial selections beyond the existing council’s mandated five-year term. Its current incarnation dates from 2013 when the PP’s Mariano Rajoy was prime minister; its mandate expired a thousand days ago but even in its current “caretaker” mode the PP majority simply continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Catalonia_independence_leaders
Título: Trial of Catalonia independence leaders - Wikipedia
Fecha de publicación: None

Ongoing trials of supporters of Catalan independence from Spain

The trial of Catalonia independence leaders, legally named Causa Especial 20907/2017 and popularly known as the Causa del procés, was an oral trial that began on 12 February 2019 in the Supreme Court of Spain. The case was tried by seven judges and was chaired by judge Manuel Marchena. Judge Pablo Llarena [es; ca] had previously coordinated an instruction between October 2017 and July 2018, as a result of which 12 people were tried, including the previous vice president Oriol Junqueras of the regional government and most of the cabinet as well as political activists Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart and the former Speaker of the Parliament of Catalonia Carme Forcadell. Some defendants remained in pre-trial detention without bail from the beginning of the instruction process and have thus already served part of their sentence.

The accused were tried for the events surrounding the organization and celebration of the 2017 Catalan independence referendum after it was declared illegal and was suspended by the Constitutional Court of Spain, the passing of laws to override the Constitution of Spain and Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia that were declared illegal and the Catalan declaration of independence on 27 October 2017.

The trial proceedings officially ended on 12 June 2019. A unanimous verdict by the seven judges that tried the case was made public on 14 October 2019. Nine of the 12 accused received prison sentences for the crimes of sedition; of them, four were also found guilty of misuse of public funds. Their sentences ranged from 9 to 13 years. The remaining three accused were found guilty of disobedience and were sentenced to pay a fine but received no prison term. The court dismissed the charges of rebellion.[1] Some of the defendants of the trial have expressed their intention to appeal to the Constitutional Court of Spain and the European Court of Human Rights.[2][3] The verdict delivered by the Supreme Court sparked multiple protests across the region.

In June 2021, the nine jailed leaders were pardoned. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that he pardoned them because it was the best decision for Spain and Catalonia, but did not overturn their bans from holding public office.[4]

Background [ edit ]

Catalonia is an autonomous community in Spain, with the capital in Barcelona. As the County of Barcelona, it joined the Crown of Aragon in the 12th century. Within the Crown, Barcelona and the other Catalan counties merged into the Principality of Catalonia. The whole of the Crown of Aragon united at the end of the 15th century with the Crown of Castile. Today, Catalonia is part of modern Spain. The inhabitants of the region are mostly bilingual in Spanish and in Catalan, and have a distinct linguistic, cultural and historical heritage. Despite belonging to Spain, throughout the history of the region, separatist movements have existed at various moments in the past.

On 9 November 2014, a non-binding 2014 Catalan self-determination referendum was held. After the Spanish Government refused to allow a binding referendum, pro-independence parties called for the 2015 Catalan regional election to be considered a plebiscite, with the promise to declare independence in 18 months. Pro-independence parties earned a majority in the Parliament but were backed by less than 50% of the voters. In September 2017, the Parliament of Catalonia approved the Law of the referendum on self-determination of Catalonia, as well as the Law of juridical transition and foundation of the Republic which was to be applied two days after the referendum results were made public and would override the Constitution of Spain and Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia while providing the Parliament with special powers to declare the secession of Catalonia from the Kingdom of Spain. Both laws were declared illegal by the Constitutional Court of Spain. The 2017 Catalan independence referendum, which was called by the Generalitat de Catalunya on 1 October 2017, was also suspended by the same court.[5][6] Despite this ruling, the referendum went ahead. On 10 October 2017, the President of the Catalan Government Carles Puigdemont addressed the Parliament of Catalonia, but did not unambiguously declare independence. On 27 October 2017, the Parliament of Catalonia passed a resolution declaring the independence of Catalonia, but no actions were initiated to enforce it. Hours later, the Government of Spain seized control of the Generalitat, invoking Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution. Subsequently, some of the independence leaders were sent to preventive detention without bail, accused of crimes of rebellion, disobedience, and misuse of public funds. Carles Puigdemont and four members of his cabinet fled into self-exile.[7]

Prosecutors [ edit ]

The prosecution was formed by the State Prosecutor's Office and the State Attorney's Office, with the right-wing political party Vox as public prosecutor. The defendants were accused of the crimes of rebellion, disobedience, and misuse of public funds.

Defendants [ edit ]

There were a total of 18 people being tried within the context of this case. They are listed below in alphabetical order by their last name, indicating the accusation, the conviction requested and the sentence by the Supreme Court.[15][16][1]

Supreme Court [ edit ]

High Court of Justice of Catalonia [ edit ]

The following six defendants were charged in the instruction of the Supreme Court yet it decided to send their cases to the High Court of Justice of Catalonia:[17]

Audiencia Nacional [ edit ]

In addition, the prosecutor of the Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) is requesting prison time for the former head of the Mossos d'Esquadra, Josep Lluís Trapero, and the rest of the Mossos d'Esquadra command in 2017.[18]

The trial began[19][20] on 20 January 2020 and due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain it was suspended on 13 March 2020.[21] The Audiencia Nacional resumed[22] the trial on 8 June 2020 and the case was remitted for decision on 17 June.[23]

On 8 June, the public prosecutor reduced the penalty against of Josep Lluís Trapero, Cèsar Puig and Pere Soler from 11 years in prison for rebellion to 10 years in prison for a crime of sedition although he announced that they would accept the disqualification for 10 years for sedition and a fine of 60.000€.[24][25] Likewise, he maintained the request for 4 years in jail against Teresa Laplana.[26]

Court [ edit ]

The court was formed of seven members in the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Spain, chaired by Manuel Marchena:

Manuel Marchena (Chair)

Antonio del Moral García

Luciano Varela

Andrés Martínez Arrieta

Juan Ramón Berdugo Gómez de la Torre

Ana María Ferrer García

Andrés Palomo del Arco

In September 2018, five of them (Manuel Marchena, Luciano Varela, Juan Ramon Berdugo, Andres Martinez Arrieta and Antonio del Moral) were recused by six of the defendants. The first four were part of the admission room that processed, on 31 October 2017, the complaint filed by the then Attorney General of the State, José Manuel Maza. One of the grounds for the recusation was that, upon admitting the complaint, these four judges could not guarantee their impartiality, a requirement for all members of the court. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge and supported their impartiality to prosecute the case.[27]

Witnesses [ edit ]

The Supreme Court approved the participation of more than 300 witnesses and refused the declaration of almost 50 others.[note 1]

On 27 February 2019, these witnesses were called to testify (in order of appearance):[29][note 2]

On 28 February 2019, these witnesses testified (in order of appearance):

On 4 March 2019, these witnesses testified (in order of appearance):

On 5 March 2019, these witnesses testified (in order of appearance):

On 14 March 2019 testified (in order of appearance):

Accusations [ edit ]

The defendants were accused of the following crimes:

Accusations of the Public Prosecutor's Office Crime Article of Penal Code Defendants Cause Rebellion Article 472 and concordant Oriol Junqueras, Joa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URL: https://www.wionews.com/world/at-catalan-separatist-trial-judge-marchena-walks-tightrope-198642
Título: At Catalan separatist trial, judge Marchena walks tightrope
Fecha de publicación: None

At the helm of the hugely divisive trial of Catalan separatist leaders, Supreme Court judge Manuel Marchena is performing a difficult balancing act, alternating firmness and leniency in live proceedings.

Seen as close to the conservative Popular Party (PP), which has taken a hard line against Catalan separatists, Marchena has trodden carefully in a trial he knows is under the domestic and foreign spotlight.

"At stake is his prestige, the prestige of the Supreme Court as well as the international image of Spain's judiciary," Xavier Vidal-Folch, deputy director of the El Pais daily, told Spanish radio on Wednesday.

He described Marchena as handling the proceedings "with great skill, with a little subtle irony and a lot of flexibility".

"Let's be serious," Marchena told one defence lawyer when refusing his demand to have Catalonia's former president Carles Puigdemont -- the main protagonist of a failed secession attempt in 2017 who fled Spain -- testify as a witness.

"You can't be a witness in the morning and a defendant in the afternoon."

But the 59-year-old judge, who has since 2014 presided over the criminal division of the Supreme Court, has also reprimanded prosecutors for some of their questions.

He also cut short the popular prosecution, a Spain-specific set-up that allows any citizen or organisation to be an accuser in court alongside public prosecutors -- in this case far-right party Vox.

Marchena warned the lawyer representing Vox that he would not allow "an ideological debate" in the courtroom.

An eye on Europe

The trial against 12 Catalan separatist leaders and activists, nine of whom are accused of rebellion, raised passions even before it started on February 12.

It is fiercely rejected by independence supporters in Catalonia but also fiercely supported by many Spaniards who watched aghast as Catalonia's executive tried to break from Spain in October 2017.

Such were the accusations of partiality levelled against Spain's judiciary that the proceedings are being broadcast live on television in an effort at transparency.

And Marchena has showed a degree of leniency towards the defendants.

When the popular prosecution asked him to tell one defendant to remove a yellow ribbon he was wearing that has come to symbolise the independence movement's cause, he overruled it.

On the first day of the trial, Marchena "gave time and absolute freedom to all sorts of arguments", legal or political, from the defence lawyers, says Celso Rodriguez Padron, spokesman for the conservative-leaning Magistrates' Professional Association.

To support some of his decisions, Marchena has referred to legal precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights, knowing the defendants will likely take the case to the European body, says Ignacio Gonzalez Vega, spokesman for the progressive Judges for Democracy professional association.

WhatsApp controversy

Even before the trial, Catalan independence supporters were wary of Marchena, who will be writing up the sentence at the end.

Some of those on trial tried in vain to recuse him, claiming he was impartial and had alleged links to the PP, in power at the time of the secession bid.

They cited as an example a leaked WhatsApp message by conservative senator Ignacio Cosido who in November welcomed the promotion of Marchena at the head of the Supreme Court.

Cosido said it would allow the conservatives to "control" the court "behind the scenes", raising doubts over Marchena's independence.

After the controversy this generated, Marchena gave up the promotion and remained at the head of the criminal division of the Supreme Court.

Gonzalez Vega tells AFP Marchena is indeed a conservative judge.

But his supporters point to his track record as a prosecutor before he was named Supreme Court judge in 2007, and since then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URL: https://www.elnacional.cat/en/politics/spain-supreme-court-long-ban-junqueras-catalan-independence_970065_102.html
Título: Supreme Court maintains long bans from office for Junqueras, Romeva ...
Fecha de publicación: None

The criminal chamber of Spain's Supreme Court, presided over by Manuel Marchena, has reviewed the sentences against the Catalan pro-independence leaders convicted in 2019, based on the reform of the Penal Code agreed by the PSOE-led Spanish government and the Catalan Republican Left (ERC). The main conclusion is that, following the same criteria as investigating judge Pablo Llarena, the Supreme Court convicts Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa for the crimes of misuse of funds and disobedience, and maintains their bans on holding public office until 2031. However, the sentence wipes out the disqualification from holding office the other five of those jailed after the 2019 trial: Jordi Sánchez, Jordi Cuixart, Josep Rull, Joaquim Forn and Carme Forcadell after the review of their crimes and sentences. In his ruling, Marchena rejects the new offence of aggravated public disorder because he does not see it as comparable to the previous crime of sedition and warns that the new criminal framework leaves unpunished any attempt at "secessionist processes" that do not involve violence or intimidation.

The key point of the resolution is the situation in which it leaves Junqueras, Romeva, Turull and Bassa, who received the harshest sentences after the 2019 trial for crimes of sedition, and misuse of funds. Pardoned by the Spanish government - which allowed them to leave prison - the major question today was to know what would happen to the long bans on holding political office that they were left with after the partial pardons. In the ruling delivered this Monday, Marchena and his colleagues reinterpret the changes to the Penal Code and follow the line already sketched out by judge Llarena, who now has to rule on the appeals made against his reinterpretation of the law change. As it stands now, the ruling means that they maintain their convictions as guilty of disobedience in conjunction with a crime of misuse of public funds. This implies that the bans on office issued at the 2019 sentencing remain in force and will prevent them from standing in the elections in the short term. Specifically, for Junqueras and Bassa, until 2031 and for Romeva and Turull, until 2030.

The court's decision leaves better news for the rest of the pro-independence leaders who were serving sentences for sedition and were also pardoned. Reinterpreting the law change, the two pro-independence social leaders of 2017, Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sànchez, are now found guilty of crimes of public disorder over the protest actions outside the Catalan economy ministry in 2017, while then-government ministers Rull and Forn, along with parliamentary speaker Forcadell, are convicted for disobedience. The change in these crimes means the total extinction of their respective bans on office holding, given the reduced penalties with which disobedience and public disorder are punished, and thus all five could take part in the next elections.

A reform that "leaves secession processes without violence unpunished"

In its argument, the Supreme Court's criminal chamber sets out in detail why the aggravated public disorder crime introduced in the amended Penal Code cannot be compared to the sedition for which they were convicted in 2019. Broadly speaking, the judges conclude that the current regulation falls short when it comes to characterizing the events of autumn 2017. It identifies that sedition "was something more than a crime against public order", it states that the actions of "those who promote by force or outside legal channels, the breaching of laws or judicial resolutions are not limited to disturbing the public order" and it adds that "those who mobilize thousands of people in the deluded belief that they will exercise the imaginary 'right to decide' are, without any doubt, undermining the constitutional bases that define coexistence". Therefore, it asserts that the current crime of aggravated public disorder "blurs the problem" and that it must punish "not only acts contrary to public peace", but "the development of a tumultuous mobilization called to prevent the democratic exercising of the authority of the state".

The Supreme Court considers that Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart committed "acts of violence and intimidation". / Photo: Sergi Alcázar

The sentence focuses on the effects of the repeal of the crime of sedition and clearly expresses the view that the reform "would leave non-violent secessionist processes unpunished". In this regard, it warns that the new regulations leave "gaps" in the crimes defined for dealing with events such as those in autumn 2017 in Catalonia. The judges interpret that, as a result of the reform, the actions taken at that time could remain outside the scope of Spanish criminal law. "There is a gap left that could in the future accommodate behaviours that seriously threaten the constitutional system [...] and if they did not involve acts of violence or intimidation against people or things they would go unpunished".

Following this line, Marchena considers that Jordi Sánchez and Jordi Cuixart did commit the crime of public disorder provided for in the Penal Code because "they committed specific acts of violence and intimidation against people and things". He recalls the role they played during the demonstration organized at the headquarters of the Catalan economy ministry on September 20th, 2017 against the search ordered by the justice system. The resolution speaks of "the disturbance of public peace and the existence of acts of intimidation as a result of the gathering of 40,000 people who were protesting against the presence of Civil Guard officers", underlining that the police cars "were destroyed" and narrating the problems that the judicial secretary had in leaving the building after the search. And, since according to the court's point of view there was violence and intimidation used by "the Jordis", sedition can, in this case, be substituted for public disorder.

Below: for each of the 9 pro-independence leaders jailed for sedition in 2019: click on image to see original sentence, revised sentence, and date of end of sentence (in Catalan)

No to the 'attenuated' variant of misuse of funds

The court also makes argument, aligning itself with Llarena once again, that the October 1st 2017 referendum must be prosecuted under the precepts of 'aggravated' misuse of funds and not the 'attenuated' version introduced by the legislators last year, with reduced sentences that would imply the reduction of the disqualification from office according to the new Penal Code. In this regard, it asserts that Junqueras, Romeva, Rull and Bassa cannot benefit from the reduced crime because "it will never be possible to understand that it was an action devoid of any profit motive". And it emphasizes that article 432 of the Penal Code "includes in its definition both those who appropriate the funds and those who, in breach of their loyal duty to the administration, decide to give them an unequivocally illegal purpose".

By way of conclusion, according to the court's point of view, those convicted of holding economic responsibility in the organization of the referendum are not supported by the wording of the article providing for a reduced punishment if public funds were used for a purpose proven different than what was expected. "This is not a decision in which the amounts budgeted for one purpose are allocated to another purpose that can be fitted into the ordinary provision of public services justified by administrative activity" says the ruling, which adds that "what was agreed upon by the convicts was their association with a criminal activity”. In other words, the money from the referendum was allocated to an action that is prohibited, prosecuted and suspended by justice. The chamber also recalls that the sentencing court did certify that "the public funds put into the service of financing the illegal referendum was a clear paradigmatic example of the diversion of budget funds for the exercise of an illegal activity".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

""