Spain's Supreme Court has confirmed the charges of rebellion against the Catalan president in exile, Carles Puigdemont, the vice president, Oriol Junqueras, and 11 other pro-independence leaders under investigation for the referendum on 1st October last year. Judge Pablo Llarena considers it "sufficiently reasonable" to define the events as an offence of rebellion because there was "an uprising" with an "unlawful" use of powers aimed at achieving the independence of Catalonia by means outside the law.
The decision to proceed with the rebellion charges means that, immediately, all of the accused who are members of parliament and are in preventive detention are suspended from their positions. This affects Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull, Josep Rull, Jordi Sànchez and Raül Romeva. On the other hand, Carles Puigdemont and Toni Comín should not be suspended, since they are not in prison, but judge Llarena does not discard suspending these men from their positions as parliamentary deputies as well. As well as the above mentioned, the court intends to try six more pro-independence leaders for rebellion: Jordi Cuixart, Marta Rovira, Joaquim Forn, Dolors Bassa, Clara Ponsatí and Carme Forcadell.
In addition, 12 charges of disobedience have been confirmed by the court: five against members of the Catalan government, specifically Meritxell Borràs, Lluís Puig, Carles Mundó, Meritxell Serret and Santi Vila; five members of the Catalan parliament's presiding board - Lluís Maria Corominas, Lluís Guinó, Anna Simó, Ramona Barrufet and Joan Josep Nuet; and the two former deputies for the CUP party, Mireia Boya and Anna Gabriel.
Finally, the 14 charges earlier laid for misappropriation of funds are also confirmed, against Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, Joaquim Forn, Jordi Turull, Josep Rull, Raül Romeva, Clara Ponsatí, Meritxell Serret, Carles Mundó, Toni Comín, Dolors Bassa, Meritxell Borràs, Lluís Puig and Santi Vila.
The court considers that there is rational evidence for misappropriation of funds because there was "a system of deception" that concealed the channelling of sums of money for other purposes related to the referendum. As well, the Supreme Court rejects the claims of political persecution alleged by the defendants and reiterates that the case seeks to pursue those who have broken the law based on the facts involved.
Unarmed rebellion
The court also adds that as the case is investigating events that are defined as rebellion, signs of reinforced motivation are required in order to maintain this charge against the defendants. In this regard, the court reiterates that there is evidence "of acts of violence" aimed at enabling the holding of the referendum, an event considered to be a necessary precursor for a later declaration of independence.
In addition, the court ruling alleges that the accused planned a police mobilization and "physical confrontation" with Spain's National Police and Civil Guard in order "to force the Spanish state to give up its efforts and to accept the declaration of independence".
The court ruling also justifies the reasons for deciding to proceed with the charges against the 15 accused of rebellion without the need to show they had used arms. According to the court, the legal definition of rebellion requires violence, that is to say, "public and violent uprising", and evidence of intention of this is sufficient basis to charge the accused with the crime.
In any case, the ruling adds that there is sufficient evidence that acts of violence did take place, at the very least on such occasions as the demonstration of 20th September and during the referendum on 1st October. The violence, says the court, was inflicted on people, resulting in a number of injuries; and on property, which can be considered as a threat of immediate violence against people.
Incitement to violence
There is also evidence, according to judge Llarena's ruling, that these events were aimed at facilitating the holding of the referendum as a necessary precursor, according to the plan, for the declaration of independence; the actions on 20th September, in as much as they were intended to prevent the confiscation of ballot boxes and other electoral material, and those of 1st October because they prevented police from following their orders to prevent the holding of the vote.
The court explains that members of the public are free to demonstrate in defence of a given political belief, as part of their freedom of expression, but are not permitted to "rise up publicly and tumultuously" in order to prevent, by force or illegal means, the application of laws, since in such cases their behaviour could constitute an offence of sedition.
The court, says the document, bases itself only on evidence to accuse the defendants of rebellion and incitement to violence. That is to say, the court concludes that the charges laid can be linked to acts of violence on the basis that the accused foresaw such acts, and accepted them even though they knew that the state would physically oppose the vote.
As a result, the court considers that the indicative facts are compatible with the crime of rebellion or in its absence, with that of sedition, although the right which is legally protected is different for each of these two offences. Rebellion is included in crimes against the constitution and sedition is classed as a crime against public order, so that the consequences of a public uprising as contemplated in an offence of rebellion are not part of the offence of sedition.
System of "deception" to conceal misappropriation of funds
With regard to the offence of misappropriation of funds, the court rejected the claim that the accused members of the Catalan government were in a position of "defencelessness before the law", since the matter did not relate to new actions each time, but rather "specific instances of the same action", relating to having used public funds to fund the referendum. The claim made by the Catalan ministers alleged they were in a situation of defencelessness due to the judge's extension of evidence involved in the alleged offence in the ruling in which he rejected appeals against altering the charges.
In this regard, the court reiterated that the investigation of the case will continue after the formal indictment, which implies that new evidence may appear without this implying "defencelessness" of the accused, as long as this does not include the introduction of "facts that could constitute a new, different crime".
Having discarded the claim of defencelessness, the Supreme Court judge concluded that "from the point of view of formal indictment", indicative rational evidence must be found in the events investigated, and specifically "a system of deception was organized" which concealed, "under the appearance of correctly executed budgetary items", the dedication of sums of money to other purposes related to the misappropriation of funds for the referendum, and this was sufficient to be considered as "rational evidence of the existence of criminality that makes the indictment necessary".
"Systematic" disobedience since 2015
Regarding the offences of disobedience, some of the defendants had alleged that they were protected by the Regulations of Parliament and that their actions were protected by parliamentary privilege.
The court referred to the same arguments that had been made in former rulings on the case, but in this instance judge Llarena considered that the acts of disobedience for which the Members of Parliament are charged were not isolated events with respect to a specific resolution, but rather that "since at least as far back as November 2015, resolutions of Spain's Constitutional Court had been systematically ignored and thus broken by the defendants, who were acting as members of the Catalan government or of the Catalan Parliament's presiding bureau”.