The State Attorney's Office asks to halve the disqualification of Oriol Junqueras

The State Attorney has sent this Thursday to the Supreme Court its request for review of sentences for those convicted of the

Catalan independentist.

In it, the highest legal service of the Administration, dependent on the Ministry of Justice, concludes that, after the reform of the Penal Code agreed by the Government and ERC and approved in Parliament in December, it is appropriate to lower the disqualification sentences for all those convicted .

The Legal Profession applies the Government's theses both for the crime of sedition (which she, she affirms, should be replaced by the new one of aggravated public disorder) and for embezzlement (a crime that she maintains, but applying an attenuated modality).

The sentence of Oriol Junqueras, former vice president of the Generalitat and leader of ERC, would be reduced to almost half: from the 13 years of disqualification that the Supreme Court imposed on him to 7 years.

He could therefore stand for elections in 2025.

The penalty reduction requested by the Lawyer derives, on the one hand, from the repeal of the crime of sedition and its change for the crime of aggravated public disorder.

And, on the other, of her commitment that the events of the

are now included in a new type of embezzlement with much milder penalties than the aggravated embezzlement seen by the Supreme Court.

According to the brief presented this Thursday, the 2019 sentence made it clear that in these events there had been no own or third-party enrichment, for which reason, the Lawyer maintains, they should be framed in the new criminal offense that punishes "the application of the patrimony public for a public purpose other than that for which it was intended, without the intention of appropriation”.

The Lawyers emphasize that, although the money embezzled by the Generalitat was destined for an illegal use —the organization of the independence referendum—, the wording of this criminal type only speaks of giving a “different” public use to that initially planned, regardless of whether that destination was legal or illegal.

Thus, the legal services of the State fully assume the thesis that inspired the Government and ERC to agree on the reform of the Criminal Code: the reduction of the punishment for those involved in the

, alleging that there was a diversion of public money but for public use as well.

This thesis disagrees with that maintained by the instructor of the

, Supreme Court magistrate Pablo Llarena, and by the Prosecutor's Office, who refuse to apply this attenuated modality of embezzlement because the money, they emphasize, was diverted for an illegal purpose.

The Lawyer, however, defends that the "public application" of which the new offense speaks must be understood as opposed to a "private" application, such as that which occurs in cases of misappropriation.

According to the legal services of the State, the fact that this public application to which public assets are allocated is illegal does not prevent this type of embezzlement from being applied, but rather should lead to sanctioning the two separate conducts (the diversion of funds and the public disorder, in this case).

The new type of embezzlement for which the Legal Profession is committed does not foresee prison sentences in its basic modality, only a fine of 3 to 12 months and disqualification of 1 to 3 years.

However, the reform also includes an aggravated formula (with penalties of one to four years in prison and two to six years of disqualification) for cases in which the crime causes "serious damage or hinderance" of the service to which the assets administered was originally intended.

This is the precept in which the Legal Profession understands that the facts for which the leaders of the

were convicted fit .

Regarding the crime of sedition, the legal representative of the State reiterates the argument that he already expressed last week in his appeal against Judge Llarena's decision not to replace the crime of sedition with the new one of public disorder in the case of the

Carles Puigdemont and the rest of the former Catalan leaders fled.

For the Legal Profession, it is "obvious" that the facts subject to conviction meet the requirements of the new crime, "although", she underlines, "they present an even greater functionality and scope".

The Supreme Court also stated in its judgment that the events carried out by Junqueras and the rest of those convicted of sedition had "an importance that far exceeded the limits of a lax interpretation of the concept of public order, to influence the essential core of that good from a constitutional perspective.

The result of applying the penal reform for both crimes leads the Lawyers to request a review of the sentences of the nine pro-independence leaders convicted by the Supreme Court.

Thus, in addition to the reduction from 13 to 7 years for Junqueras, former councilors Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa (who were sentenced to 12 years of disqualification) would now have a sentence of 6 years and 9 months.

The disqualification of Joaquim Forn, Josep Rull and Carme Forcadell would drop to 6 years and 3 months;

and that of Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart would be 4 years, with which the former would have completed it and that of the latter would be completed in October of this year.

The final decision on this petition for reduced sentences will be made by the Supreme Court after hearing all parties.

The Prosecutor's Office sent its letter on Wednesday, in which it urges to reduce the disqualification sentences of five of the convicted but to keep intact those of four others, including Oriol Junqueras.

The defenses of the convicted, for their part, demand unconditional acquittal.

All the writings refer only to the disqualification sentences because the prison sentences already disappeared in practice when the Government pardoned all the prisoners of the

in June 2021.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber