The magistrates will return to study the precautionary measure in a few days, when they receive the arguments against the Government through the State Attorney

Two of those pardoned, Oriol Junqueras and Carme Forcadell, at a meeting this Monday of the ERC National Permanent.EFE

The Supreme Court has rejected this Monday the request of three leaders of Citizens to proceed with the immediate suspension of the pardons granted by the Government to the nine defendants in the case of the procs sentenced to prison terms. The magistrates of the Fifth Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber consider that there are no circumstances of special urgency to agree that suspension in a very cautious manner, that is, without even listening to the allegations of the State Attorney, who acts on behalf of the of the government.

The magistrates now order the processing of the suspension request through the ordinary procedure of precautionary measures and give the State Attorney a period of five days to formulate allegations to the suspension request requested by the representatives of Citizens. With the arguments of both parties, the Supreme Court will again decide on the precautionary measure.

Among other arguments, the Supreme Court does not consider the appellants’ allegation justified, according to which the urgency to release the pardoned, even before the opening of the appeal period, should now correspond to the same urgency to address the precautionary suspension measure. . “This approach does not seem to take duly into consideration that we are in the presence of the fundamental right to liberty of every person, recognized and guaranteed in article 17 of the Constitution, of which no one can be deprived except in the cases and in the manner provided in the law, in this case by virtue of the corresponding judicial resolution that gives legal cover to the deprivation of liberty of the condemned “, indicates the court.

It adds that, if that judicial coverage for the prison disappears through the granting of pardon, freedom must be immediate, and the maintenance of freedom “does not imply but respecting the fundamental right to freedom of which the person can only be deprived in the cases and the manner provided by law “.

In their request for suspension, the leaders of Cs argued that the time it takes to resolve appeals against pardons “is time during which pardons can make the action of justice fail, as well as the adequate protection of rights and interests of the appellants, since they could, on the one hand, flee from the action of justice (risk of flight) making it impossible, de facto, to restore the legality declared by the final conviction and, on the other, reiterate the action crime for which they were convicted “.

The magistrates point out that this reference to the possibility of fleeing or continuing the criminal activity, “without any justification that allows appreciating the immediate materialization of such risk, can hardly be considered sufficient for the purpose of proving (…) the concurrence of circumstances of special urgency that justify the sacrifice of the principle of contradiction “.

(function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(d.getElementById(id))return;js=d.createElement(s);;js.src=””;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}(document,’script’,’facebook-jssdk’)); .

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more