The Constitution Unanimously Confirms That The Supreme Court Has The Power To Try “Litigation”

2021-02-17   |   by CusiGO

The constitutional court once again upheld the trial’s verdict, which on Tuesday rejected the first appeal against the independent trial’s verdict, that of former governor merit Searle Burres, who was convicted of disobedience by the Supreme Court. In addition, the judgment held that the Supreme Court’s trial of criminal cases did not violate any fundamental rights, especially the right to be tried by judges as provided by law. This means that the constitution supports the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and intervention on this issue, contrary to the defense of the accused politicians: the case is heard by the Catalan High Court (tsjc).

The theory laid down in the judgment – with judge Candido Conde Pompido as the reporter – will be extended to all those who oppose the conviction of independent leaders in the future. So the verdict is significant: it supports the Supreme Court in trying cases and then trying its leaders. The defence will again raise this issue with the human rights court in Strasbourg, especially in view of the refusal of the Belgian court last January to transfer former member Luis Puig to Spain on the grounds that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the facts of the proceedings.

The supreme criminal chamber also held that it was fully entitled to receive complaints from the office of the prosecutor against the independent leaders, as a result of a number of events abroad, particularly those that promoted the independence process internationally, and, Its impact extends to the entire national territory, not just the Catalan community. In this case, the appellant argues that members of the Catalan government were tried in the above-mentioned high court.

The Supreme Court’s penalty for Meritxell Borr รก s was a 10-month fine, 200 euros a day, and a year and eight months of disqualification for disobedience. The prosecutor’s office also demanded a seven-year prison sentence for the crime of insurgency, plus a 10-month fine, 200 euros a day, and 20 years of disqualification.

Justice Antonio navaz, who did not participate in the debate on the issue, withdrew from the debate on Wednesday after the defendant’s defense lawyers objected. The reason for the opposition was a meeting held in navaz in 2017, where he called the incident a “secret coup” and made the consequences worse than Colonel Jero’s attack on Congress.