The magistrate Hortensia de Oro-Pulido, responsible for the Criminal Court number 30 of Madrid, has sentenced Antonio Baños, former deputy of the CUP in the Catalan Parliament, to four months in prison. The judge has concluded that the former parliamentarian, who appeared as a witness on January 27, 2019 in the trial of the process, committed a crime of disobedience by refusing to answer Vox’s questions, appearing as a popular accusation. The ruling also imposes as an accessory penalty the special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage during the sentence, as well as the payment of costs. Baños can now appeal to the Provincial Court of Madrid.
The former deputy of the CUP sat on the bench of the accused on September 29. During the hearing held against him, the Prosecutor’s Office stressed that the former parliamentarian “had the obligation to testify” when he appeared “as a witness” at the trial of the process held in the Supreme Court and that ended with prison sentences for nine of the political leaders of the Catalan independence challenge in the fall of 2017. For its part, the defense requested acquittal, pointing out that the politician’s refusal was not serious enough to be considered crime; and because, as he added, he had “no relevance to the process”: “It had no consequence,” his lawyer stressed.
However, the magistrate charges harshly against Baños, whom she even accuses of “mocking” the Supreme Court and of starring in an “unspeakable chufla”. As he states in his sentence, after taking an oath to tell the truth, the former deputy “firmly and persistently refused to comply with the court’s order and answer the questions of the popular accusation.” The judge describes his attitude as “serious” and stresses that his conduct “not only violates the principle of authority, but also violates the right to defense, recognized by the Constitution, by depriving the popular accusation of using the evidence recognized in the laws”. “It also affects the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice and public order,” she adds.
The sentence also emphasizes that the defendant’s refusal occurred in the Supreme Court, “which constitutes the dome and the highest judicial instance in the Administration of Justice.” And it emphasizes that Baños was aware of the public relevance of the oral hearing in which he appeared: “The disobedience did not occur in any trial, which are those that are ordinarily held in courts and tribunals, where publicity is usually limited to the parties, all the interveners and, at most, any person who decides to attend the hearing as a public. In this case, the trial had a great impact, derived from the subject matter of the case (essentially crimes of rebellion, according to the accusations —definitively classified in the sentence as sedition— and embezzlement) and because of the people involved and their direct relationship with the Government of the autonomous community of Catalonia. All of his sessions were televised live. It is clear that the accused knew him, as he also knew of the importance of conduct such as the one he displayed in maintaining, at least before an entire nation, his disobedience before the Supreme Court”.
“The accused, at all times, since he appeared before the Supreme Court, had not the slightest intention of answering Vox’s questions, being stubborn and obstinate in his refusal and adopting an attitude of frank rebellion before the order of the high court”, continues the sentence, which rejects that Baños can “protect” on “supposed ideological reasons.” “It should be remembered that Spain is a rule of law and that everyone, including the accused, is subject to the rule of law, which is what regulates the exceptions to testify in court, which cannot be left to the discretion or whim of the interveners. . It is surprising, even frivolous, that political or ideological reasons are adduced to refuse to answer who is a party to a judicial proceeding, when ideological freedom is a fundamental right recognized for everyone, not just those who decide the accused, “says the ruling. , dated this October 7.
What affects the most is what happens closest. To not miss anything, subscribe.
subscribe
Like Baños, deputy Eulàlia Reguant (CUP) also refused to answer Vox’s questions at the trial, despite the fact that she was present as a witness. This October 5, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of 13,500 euros on Reguant —at a rate of 50 euros a day for nine months— for her refusal, but freed her from a four-month prison sentence, which the Prosecutor’s Office requested for her, and that would have led to his disqualification.
#months #jail #Antonio #Baños #refusing #respond #Vox #procés #trial