Carles Puigdemont requested that the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) sanction the Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena for having “intentionally” “hindered” the application of the amnesty law in their favor.
In a complaint addressed to the college of judges, the defense of the former president complains that Llarena would “delay” the resolution of the appeals through which the politician requested to benefit from the amnesty.
Gonzalo BoyePuigdemont’s lawyer signs the document, also presented on behalf of the Catalan leader Toni Comin. And he reproaches the magistrate, instructed on the case on process Catalan, allegedly did not respect the deadlines stipulated for responding to calls, “without there appearing to be any reason to justify it.”
The complaint, which EL ESPAÑOL has had access to, also criticises the fact that Llarena interrupted his summer holidays due to Puigdemont’s visit. —a fugitive from justice—in Barcelona on August 8 while the two challenges posed by the defense of the two politicians are still not resolved by the instructor.
These are the means by which Boye opposed the decision of the judge of not to apply the amnesty law on the crime of aggravated embezzlement for which Puigdemont was prosecuted. In addition, Llarena maintained the arrest warrant against the former president. Despite this, the latter went to Barcelona and gave a speech at a public event in front of the Arc de Triomf in Barcelona on August 8. The Mossos, the police in charge of his arrest, were unable to stop him.
In his complaint to the CGPJ, Gonzalo Boye maintains that Llarena “has repeatedly failed to comply with the deadlines set by the Criminal Procedure Act (LECrim) for the resolution of appeals for reform, which are those presented before the judge who issued the contested resolution.
The lawyer cites Article 222 of the LECrim, the third paragraph of which sets a specific deadline for responding to appeals for reform by an investigating judge. “Given the dates on which the corresponding copies were filed and transferred, (…) they should have been resolved more than a month ago, during the first half of July 2024,” states the letter, dated the same day. Monday.
This is why Puigdemont’s lawyer considers that “the facts reported are undoubtedly constituting a disciplinary offence“, which is why he demands that the General Council of the Judiciary sanction Llarena.
According to the complaint, the instructor did not respond to appeals for reform filed by other parties in the same case, such as the prosecution and the public prosecutor, “which (…) confirms the reiteration of the procedure of the most excellent investigating magistrate.”
Finally, Boye complains about the “intentional passivity” which he attributes to the judge and even goes so far as to affirm that this attitude aims to “expand the access” of Carles Puigdemont and Comín to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and to the Constitutional Court, as well as ultimately, “hinder” the application of the amnesty law in both cases.
“It should be emphasized that the plaintiffs have presented two reminders on the pendency of the said appeals for reform, (…) so that there is no doubt that the most excellent investigating judge had unique knowledge of the particular circumstances of the case, having been specifically informed of its delay up to two times, despite which he continued without expediting it,” the complaint concludes.
Just as it was Finally drafted, the amnesty law excludes from its scope of application embezzlements whose intention was to obtain a “personal advantage of a patrimonial nature”.
However, in the opinion of Llarena and the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, the persons involved in the organization of the trial processby having public funds to finance the sovereignty process and the 1-O referendum, they had a clear objective to obtain this advantage.
