The lawyer of the former president of the Catalan Generalitat Carles Puigdemont, acting in this case on behalf of the also accused Josep Lluís Alay, has requested that a large part of the summary of the case be annulled. Tsunami case, regarding the riots, some violent, that occurred in Catalonia in 2019 after the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of processes. The thesis of the lawyer Gonzalo Boye is that the judge handling the case, Manuel García-Castellón, has not properly applied the rules on extension in the summary investigation, incurring grounds for partial annulment of the proceedings.
In the document presented before the investigating judge himself, Alay's defense – Puigdemont's most trusted person – states that “on July 29, 2021, the expiration date for the extension of the investigation expired and, therefore, all subsequent investigative diligence violates the Law and is null and void.” Boye maintains that investigation proceedings cannot be agreed upon after July 29, 2021 because it is an “insurmountable limit”, that of exhaustion of the investigation period.
The defense emphasizes that until that date no statement was taken from any of those investigated. He adds that no one can be brought to trial without having first taken a statement from him as an investigator, with the corresponding guarantees. And he argues that this circumstance is already sufficient reason to consider that everything carried out as of July 29, 2021 is null and void.
With this foundation, the brief seeks not only to question the extensions that it considers improper and already agreed upon in this procedure but also to formulate its opposition to any new extension. Boye emphasizes that prior to July 29, 2021, no extension had been agreed, and “the investigation has continued to be unduly and illegally extended, manifestly contravening the provisions of article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Law and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.” ” on the rules that should be applied to the prolongation of criminal instructions.
To explain why the date of July 29 is key, the defense highlights that by order of July 30, 2021 – which is signed on August 2, 2021 – the extension of the instruction from the previous day was agreed, thus that “the instruction was extended retroactively to the issuance of the aforementioned order as if that were possible without violating the very norm that was being applied.” Boye continues to explain that, subsequently, the investigation period has been extended through various orders. The first, dated January 14, 2022, agreeing to the extension until July 29, 2022. The second, dated July 6, 2022, agreeing to the extension until January 29, 2023. A third order, dated January 17 of 2023, agreeing to the extension until July 29, 2023. And a fourth resolution agreeing to the extension until January 29, 2024.
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
The defense maintains that this procedural construction does not stand because “the first order of July 30, 2021 was issued after the deadline and, furthermore, it cannot be understood as having been issued until the moment of its signature on August 2, 2021 and, consequently, everything agreed upon, such as investigation proceedings and actions subsequently taken, is null and void.” Boye cites Supreme Court jurisprudence in favor of his theses, and specifically ruling 1841/2023, of March 13, which in its third legal basis states that “procedures carried out after the deadline are not valid” and that once “ Once the investigation is completed, based on the procedures that have been carried out up to that moment and only with them, it will be decided if the process has to continue or if, in another case, it is appropriate to agree to its dismissal.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#defense #asks #annul #39Tsunami #case39 #due #alleged #error #extensions #dictated #judge