Llarena appeals to other awards received to reject Puigdemont’s challenge

The Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena has refused this Monday to depart from the procedure that is pending in relation to the fled from the ‘procés’ for having received a distinction from the Villacisneros Foundation, defender of the unity of Spain, because it has also been distinguished by other groups, such as the Barcelona Urban Guard in 2011, when the condemned by the 1-O Joaquim Forn He was first deputy mayor of the city and the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont, mayor of Girona.

Now an instructor will be appointed and the Second Chamber of the high court will be the one to resolve the challenge raised against him by the former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont as well as Toni Comín, Lluís Puig and Clara Ponsatí. Llarena argues that the new cause of recusal in no way compromises the image of impartiality that the judicial action offers to an impartial observer, so there is no reason to depart from the investigation of the case opened against them and that it will be reactivated as soon as they are at the disposal of the Spanish justice.

Remember that different groups They have recognized their “effort and rigor”, from “the ideological diversity that permeates the initiatives of the different entities and, logically, from the aspects of the jurisdictional function that each institution wishes to highlight, entity or means of communication “.

The judge highlights that the recognition that the Barcelona municipal team gave him, with Xavier Trias as mayor, did not compromise confidence in judicial neutrality for the accusations, despite the fact that decisions that were adverse to them were issued in the case, as well as the distinction of the Villacisneros Foundation, and others that it has received, now compromise the public credibility that it has carried out a neutral performance.

Judge on demand

In his report, notified to the parties on Monday, the judge highlights the court’s doctrine on judicial impartiality, and stresses that in this matter appearances are important, since what is at stake is the trust that the Courts must inspire in the citizens in a democratic society, but adds that “This does not mean that the subjectivity of one of the parties should prevail, so that to exclude the judge predetermined by the Law it is sufficient to raise suspicions that are not objectively reasonable for an external observer, since it would lead to an on-demand judge system”.

The magistrate emphasizes that the authors of the challenge avoid that impartiality is a internal and objective attitude of the judge, so the Society’s perception of its neutrality must arise from the attitude or behavior of the magistrate himself. Reproaches the challengers who do not question their performance, but only receive the award with references to the political affiliation of members of the board of directors of the foundation and “hide” that they are not part of the board that grants it, “which is symptomatic in attention to that the dissertation has been disclosed along with the rest of the personal interventions that are reviewed & rdquor ;.

No persecution

Llarena tries to dismount personal, unjustified and arbitrary persecution suggested in the recusal brief, recalling some of his decisions in favor of the defense, such as the decision that the members of the Parliamentary Board were to be released after their first judicial statement or not to appreciate rational evidence of criminality against Artur Mas, Marta Pascal or Neus Lloveras, as requested by the accusation exercised by Vox. Or more recently when Meritxell Serret voluntarily appeared and was also released.

Related news

The report answers that “it is not such and no animosity can be seen in the jurisdictional work of this instructor. After the eventual commission of the apparently criminal acts attributed to them, the challengers left Spanish territory and have avoided appearing before this investigator. Only this circumstance has prevented the conclusion of a summary in which the promoters of the challenge are duly represented, and only this circumstance prevents the Trial Chamber from being able to rule in favor of the dismissal of the case claimed by the defenses or in favor of the opening of the oral trial that, eventually, may request the accusations & rdquor ;.

“The persecution that is alleged refers to an obligatory procedural action, incapable for that to chisel the suspicion in the public opinion that this instructor is lacking the required impartiality & rdquor ;, he insists.