Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena, who is in charge of the trial, sent to the Barcelona Courts the report of the Mossos d’Esquadra on the escape of Carles Puigdemont on August 8, as well as the document prepared by the Ministry of the Interior on the same subject.
The instructor of the “trial” file maintains that in view of the explanations given in the two reports, Liability for possible offences of concealment or failure to comply with the obligation to prosecute offences cannot be excluded..
Since the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to open proceedings, Llarena sent the reports to the Barcelona Court of Instruction “for the appropriate legal purposes.”
The former Catalan president, on the run since October 2017, returned to Barcelona last August, where he performed on August 8 from a stage set up by the ANC (Catalan National Assembly) on the central Paseo de Lluis Companys in front of around 4,500 people.
When he finished, he got off the stage and fled again in front of the Mossos troops deployed and who had to comply with the national arrest order issued by the Supreme Court, the validity of which Llarena had just recalled.
On August 9, the investigator of the “trial” file asked the Mossos and the Ministry of the Interior for explanations on the “failure” of the police operation to arrest Puigdemont.
The Catalan police responded with a 23-page report in which they stated that they had deployed a total of 600 police officers to ensure the normality of the investiture session of Salvador Illa in the Catalan Parliament and to comply with the order to arrest Puigdemont.
The former Catalan president was not arrested because “the police opportunity was not available” to do this, indicates the report sent to the High Court by the former major of the Mossos, Eduard Sallent.
The document states that the Catalan police “in no case was it intended, taking into account the parameters of reasonableness and congruence, that Puigdemont’s return would be merely temporary and would not aim to participate in the plenary session of Parliament”, as it had announced.
He was not arrested before or after his intervention on Avenida de Lluis Companys because “he was surrounded by hundreds of people” and “it was considered that it was not coherent, opportune or proportionate to carry out police action through the use of force in this area.” For this reason, “it was decided to wait, as planned, for him to address Parliament.”
However, Puigdemont did not attend the inauguration session, but got into a car driven by a disabled person and left.
“Puigdemont’s escape, thanks to a distraction maneuver elaborated with the involuntary cooperation of thousands of people and the organized activity of a group of close collaborators, prevented the Mossos d’Esquadra corps from executing the arrest order issued by the Supreme Court, despite their will and determination,” the report states.
The only policeman who saw Puigdemont leaving Avenida de Lluis Companys was unable to give the warning through the communication equipment he was carrying because the channel was occupied by other police officers. When he was able to communicate with his superior, he gave the wrong model of car, so the wrong vehicle was searched.
The police drone that was recording the scene also failed to capture the moment of the escape.
Not convincing
Llarena was not convinced by the explanations of the Mossos commanders nor by those of the Ministry of the Interior, responsible for border control.
“The reports do not indicate any obstacle to the police system to detect the rebellious accused as he headed towards the place where he joined the crowd that was waiting for him, nor the impossibility of effectively ensuring his subsequent surveillance and location, until the moment when his flight from the national territory materialized,” the magistrate underlines in a resolution.
“The presentations prevents the exclusion of possible liabilities for the offences under Articles 408 and 451.3º.b of the Penal Code.
The first refers to the authority or official who, “failing to fulfill the obligations of his function, intentionally fails to promote the prosecution of crimes of which he is aware or of those responsible”. The penalties of special prohibition of employment or public office are established for a period of six months to two years.
The second punishes for receiving stolen goods, with a prison sentence of six months to three years and a recusal, anyone who “helps the alleged perpetrators to evade the investigation of the authority or its agents, or to evade their search or capture”, always the one who has acted with abuse of public functions.
