-
His sentences of 3 years in prison were suspended in 2015, while the pardon was resolved.
-
A change in the Penal Code that same year will prevent it from occurring in other cases
The National audience acquitted 19 of the 20 defendants for the assault on Parliament that was experienced on June 15, 2011, three years later. In 2015, the Supreme Court overturned that sentence and sentenced eight of them to youthree years in prison for a crime against state institutions. None entered prison, because they resorted to the Constitutional Court and requested pardon, a request that has not yet been resolved, so, with the regulations in force when the sentence was suspended, this has been declared prescribed.
The First Criminal Section of the National Court, which was in charge of judging how the Catalan deputies were prevented from going to Parliament and the then president of the Generalitat, Arthur Morehad to travel by helicopter, has issued an order for each of the eight convicted by the Supreme Court in which declares the prison sentence prescribed imposed.
To make its decision, the court consulted with the prosecutor, who agreed, since since the sentence was declared final, which is the moment in which the Supreme Court pronouncedhave elapsed more than five years, which is the term provided for small sentences, as in this case, which was 3 years. The resolution, to which EL PERIÓDICO has had access, explains the change suffered in the Penal Code also in 2015, but after the sentence of those convicted of the siege of the Chamber was suspended, so it does not affect them .
Still pending
Related news
Until then the request for pardon, which seven years after it was requested has not been resolvedand the amparo appeal that they presented in the Constitutional Court and that did not resolve it until last year, did not interrupt the prescription of a sentence, which began to be counted from the moment the Supreme Court pronounced itself or became firm.
The Constitutional Court took so long to rule on this case, because the statement in favor of the acquittal of those convicted by the Supreme Court, for not having been heard in that instance, meant a breakdown in relations between the magistrates who were then part of the high court . Finally, the sentence confirmed convictions reflected this division since it was dictated by six votes against four.