Regarding the embezzlement, he considers that, at most, it might have been an unfair administration that may now not be charged and could be erased. His protection alleges that disobedience or aggravated public dysfunction don’t match with the repealed seditionOriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Carme Forcadell and Dolors Bassa have introduced their writings this Tuesday
The protection of these convicted of ERC within the course of, has requested this Tuesday the acquittal of former vp Oriol Junqueras; former minister Raül Romeva; the previous president of Parliament, Carme Forcadell; and the ex-minister Dolors Bassa. They accomplish that, in 4 writings to which NIUS has accessed, when responding to the Supreme Court on how they think about that the reform that repeals sedition and reduces penalties for embezzlement when there isn’t a revenue motive ought to be interpreted.
The lawyer Andreu Van den Eynde factors out that the brand new textual content of the Criminal Code doesn’t present for “legal duty for any of the conducts” for which they had been convicted and for that reason he requests that or not it’s declared that there isn’t a legal duty, which if profitable would decline the disqualifications that stay to be fulfilled.
It exposes, on the one hand, that the crime of sedition can not stay in disobedience, that it was by no means charged; and neither in public dysfunction as a result of, within the line of Judge Llarena, they guarantee that they don’t have lace and have by no means been contemplated on this case, being a brand new kind.
“The confirmed information that of their day had been subsumed within the crime of sedition can not discover a typical slot in some other crime and particularly can’t be punished in accordance with the crime of public dysfunction,” reads the letter, which delves into that the “riot rebellion” described within the crime of sedition to keep away from compliance with judicial or administrative orders has nothing to do with the crime of public dysfunction. Not solely that, the lawyer recollects that the court docket ruling already excluded the potential of contemplating that the occasions had been public dysfunction.
And that was so – within the opinion of the ERC attorneys – as a result of the target of the convicted, in response to the sentence, was to carry a prohibited referendum on independence, and to not disturb public order, which is what the crime of public dysfunction refers to. .
The doc emphasizes his full disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling, however recollects that his story doesn’t describe occasions that may be categorized as public dysfunction.
Regarding embezzlement, the lawyer assures that, at finest, it might be an unfair administration, however provides that it can’t be utilized both and that, as well as, it declines because of the disappearance of the primary crime, for which the diverted funds had been used, which is the sedition.
(((There will probably be enlargement))))