Madrid (EFE) , in addition to embezzlement.
He has done so in an appeal, to which EFE has had access, against Llarena’s order that withdrew the crime of sedition against Puigdemont and prosecuted him for disobedience and embezzlement, not including the crime of aggravated public disorder for the former president of the Generalitat nor to the ex-ministers Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí.
Like the Prosecutor’s Office, the State lawyer Rosa María Seoane asks the judge to include aggravated public disorder as a crime “for which those accused in rebellion can be prosecuted, along with those of disobedience and embezzlement.”
The maximum penalty for both crimes would be 17 years.
The most severe form of embezzlement and the new crime of aggravated public disorder are punishable by up to 12 and 5 years in prison respectively, which would add up to 17 years.
In its appeal, the Lawyer maintains that “by excluding outright” the new crime “it unduly limits the right that accusations assist them to be able to formulate their accusation qualifying the facts according to the type of crime they consider applicable” and it does so “invading » which he considers «should be a function of the prosecuting authority».
In addition, it warns that excluding this crime “makes it impossible for the procedure to be followed in any case for the crimes it excludes, preventing the investigation, once the suspension of the procedure is lifted due to ceasing the situation of rebellion, it could have as a I object to these other conducts or that the prosecutions can formulate an accusation for these other types of crimes.
The Lawyers coincide with the Prosecutor’s Office, which asks to claim Puigdemont for aggravated disorders
For this reason, it charges Llarena by stating that it cannot exhaustively conclude the inapplicability of the crime of aggravated public disorder “without even granting a process of allegations to the parties on the application of the legal modification operated to the facts investigated.”
Unlike the instructor, who believes that the suppression of the crime of sedition has left the fled independence leaders in “a context close to decriminalization”, the Lawyers affirm that the penal reform is not equivalent to a decriminalization of the facts.
The Legal Profession understands that “there would be no obstacle” to the application of the new criminal offenses in a regulation subsequent to the commission of the acts, “provided that such acts were punishable in accordance with the criminal regulations prior to the reform, even under criminal offenses different” and that “such an operation does not result in the application of a more serious punitive consequence than that foreseen”.
The position of the Lawyers coincides with the Prosecutor’s Office, which in its appeal affirms that the sentence of the “procés” includes “the typical elements” of the crime of aggravated public disorder, for which reason the exclusion of this criminal type that Llarena made in his order “It is not adjusted to the law”, and its resolution, it says, “restricts the future prosecution” of the fugitives in the event that they are handed over.