The Spanish Ministry for Foreign Affairs Fabricates a Dossier of 70 Pages Full of Distortions and Falsehoods to “Combat” the Catalan pro-Independence Movement Abroad

Spain Global, a body of the Spanish Foreign Ministry led by Josep Borrell has prepared a dossier of 70 pages full of falsehoods and distortions to combat the Catalan pro-independence movement abroad.

The document includes a list of 45 “habitual” pro-independence movement “slogans” which the Ministry for Foreign Affairs classifies as “fakes.” The document contradicts each case with falsehoods and distortions.

For example, the document only acknowledges three injuries during the October 1, 2017 independence referendum. However, the official data provided by the Catalan health department puts it at 1,066 people, many of whom needed medical assistance and some even hospitalization.

The dossier also suggests that the “Catalan pro-independence movement” is not peaceful and considers the peaceful demonstration in front of the Catalan Department of Economy on Sept. 20, 2017, (in which nobody was injured) a “seige.” Numerous organizations have pointed out that this demonstration was just a peaceful exercise of the right to protest.

Catalan civil society leaders Jordi Cuixart and Jordi Sànchez were jailed and accused of sedition and rebellion for that demonstration. Organizations such as Amnesty International have repeatedly condemned this and called for their immediate release.

Captura.PNG

The document explains that there aren’t any political prisoners, despite the fact that Amnesty International has published several reports saying that “the charges against Cuixart and Sànchez are unfounded and must therefore be dropped. If it can be shown that they called on demonstrators to prevent police from carrying out a lawful operation, this could constitute a prosecutable public order offence. But accusing them of such serious crimes as rebellion or sedition and detaining them for a year is disproportionate and an excessive restriction of their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.” Thus, it is clear that the jailed Catalan leaders are in prison for their ideas, not their crimes, therefore they are political prisoners.

The dossier also violates the presumption of innocence of former Catalan parliament speaker Carme Forcadell, saying that her “illegal” acts “deprived Catalans of rights, and violated mandates” of courts. 

10.PNG

Regardless, to the extent that the imprisoned Catalans have been convicted of no crimes, the dossier violates the European Convention on Human Rights’ Article 6 (“Right to a fair trial”).

Per the CoE, “Art. 6§2 prohibits statements by public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect is guilty.” In this case, it’s more than just oral statements. It’s publishing and actively distributing documents implying guilt.

ECFlzw5XoAERP5u

Another chapter refers to the Spanish far right-wing party Vox as a “conservative” party and defends their presence in the Independence Trial as a private prosecutor. The body has indicated that this document is only one of many materials that are taken into consideration in its work “to face the threats to the reputation of Spain.”

As has been demonstrated above, this dossier appears to have been fabricated with the sole intention of manipulating public opinion.

 

 

Remember that You Can Support Josep’s Reporting Here: 

https://www.paypal.me/JosepGoded

https://www.patreon.com/josepgoded

Advertisements

The ANC Urges the Catalans to Use the Mobilizations of the Independence Trial Verdict Response to “Take Strength” to Resume Unilateralism

Last week, the President of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), Elisenda Paluzie, urged the Catalans to use “the impulse of the upcoming Independence Trial verdict” to make demonstrations capable of forcing the Catalan government to recover unity and re-make a roadmap for independence.

Paluzie also said that according to the roadmap of the ANC, unilateralism must be resumed when pro-independence parties get over 50% of the total votes in a Catalan general election. In this regard, she said that unilateralism is “complex” and that it must be “reinforced” with the legitimization of the votes.

The President of the ANC admitted that there is “disparity” within the pro-independence movement, but that has also occurred on other occasions, such as in 2012 and 2013. For this reason, she insisted on calling for unity “in the face of the foreseeable condemnation of the political leaders and entities that serves to resume the path to independence and bring the objective back on the top of the agenda.”

Regarding the discomfort expressed by ERC with ANC’s strategy in the last few weeks, Paluzie pointed out that “it depends on the moment and the strategy adopted, the ANC may disturb one party or another.” She also made it clear that if there were people who ever insulted ERC leaders in a demonstration, it is an “isolated fact that the ANC does not support at all […] we have to be very hard in the content, but very elegant in the forms,” added Elisenda Paluzie

13 International Observers Denounce Violation of Human Rights During the Independence Trial

The International Trial Watch (ITW) platform has published thirteen reports of human rights activists and jurists around the world who attended the Independence Trial.

Each report written by these observers is autonomous. The ITW has not intervened in the drafting and has limited itself to coordinating and grouping them in this publication.

The authors of the reports include John Philpot – Canadian lawyer, Paul Newman – Indian philosopher and former spokesperson for the People’s Tribunal/Court of Sri Lanka, Bill Bowring – European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights, Jelle Klaas – Nederlands Juristen Comité Voor De Mensenrechten, Patrizio Gonella and Susanna Marietti – Antigone, Matthieu Cretenand – University of Geneva, Cécile Brandely and Claire Dujardin – French Lawyers’ Union (AED), Ernesto Moreau – Argentinian lawyer, Sahar Francis – Defense and Human Rights Association Addameer, Cristina Servan Melero – Pro-Human Rights Association of Andalusia, Ramón Campos García and Ana Sebastián Gascón – Free Association of Lawyers of Zaragoza, and Joseba Belaustegi Cuesta – member of the Basque platform Jurists for the Right to Decide.

John Philipot, for example, considers that “The essence of this trial is to criminalize the exercise of civil and political rights. The Spanish state is treating these twelve politicians and social leaders fundamentally as a single criminal organization as if they were drug traffickers or an organized crime syndicate.”

Paul Newman concludes that “the only violence that occurred during the 2017 October 1st independence referendum was committed by the Spanish police and the Civil Guard, not the Catalan government.” He also points out that “everyone has the inherent right to self-determination.”

Jelle Klaas, who focuses his argument in the case of Jordi Cuixart, says “Arresting, detaining, and prosecuting Cuixart and asking for a 17 years prison sentence, in essence, is the fact that he made use of his human rights to protest.”

Claire Dujardin defines the trial as a “judicial farce.”

Sahar Francis of the Defense and Human Rights Association Addameer, an expert in the defense of Palestinian political prisoners in the military courts, comes to assure that “some of these practices [witnessed at the Supreme Court] are very similar to those of the military prosecution of the occupation.”

All experts agree that in Spain fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, are being violated, and that it is affecting the entire Spanish population. They also affirm that the essence of the trial “is to criminalize the exercise of civil and political rights.”

International Observers Find Violation of Numerous Human Rights and Legal Procedures During the Catalan Independence Trial

The organization of international observers Trial Watch – Catalan Referendum Case (ITW) has concluded in its preliminary report that the trial of the 12 independentist leaders held at the Supreme Court over the past few months is a “political cause” in which “fundamental rights such as free assembly, political participation and freedom of expression have been violated.” The group also considers that there is no basis for condemning political prisoners for rebellion and seditious crimes, and that they have been “reworked” to adapt them to the Criminal Code.

The ITW concludes that organising citizen demonstrations was not capable of “transforming the constitutional order or preventing the legitimate public authority from carrying out its functions,” since in this case a state of siege had been applied. The conclusions of the report also make a special mention of the cases of the former president of the ANC, Jordi Sànchez, the president of Òmnium Cultural, Jordi Cuixart and the former president of the Parliament, Carme Forcadell: “Your behavior cannot be criminal because it was protected in the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the right of assembly or freedom of expression.”

The ITW also considers that the investigation carried out by prosecutor Javier Zaragoza in the National Court on November 5, 2015, has shown that it is a general cause: “The object was to investigate the entire Catalan political movement,” which is forbidden in the Spanish legal system.

More than 30 human rights organizations support the 20 points with which observers summarize the most important violations in the trial. Although not part of the process after the Supreme Court questioned the quality of observers, the group of experts hopes that the judges will accept the criticisms in the report. They also expect their analysis to help the defendants continue their path to European courts after the ruling, which will be known in the coming months.

Jailed Catalan leader Jordi Cuixart: “The solution to the problem of blind obedience is civil disobedience”

The President of the Catalan grassroots and pro-independence organization Òmnium Cultural, Jordi Cuixart, said on Thursday that “the solution to the problem of blind obedience is civil disobedience.” In a letter that was read during the opening of the first days on civil disobedience organized by the entity, Cuixart explained that in order to reverse the “dramatic” situation that society suffers from, it is necessary to train “even more” and to exercise the practice of non-violence.

“To instruct us is essential because the powerful know how to criminalize the protest and cause dissent by putting us traps,” he argued. From the prison of Lledoners, he told the conference attendees that “we will do it again” and cited “constant, persevering and full of courage mobilization.” “The only battle that is lost is the one that is abandoned,” he concluded at the end of the letter.

Mauri, vice-president of Òmnium, also intervened in the conference to say that injustices in society must give rise to “non-violent civil disobedience.”

“We are in a moment of regression of rights. Civil disobedience is the most useful and legitimate instrument for the situation we are experiencing. Given the situation of the degradation of rights that we suffer in Catalonia, Spain and Europe, we understand that the committed, mobilized and organized citizens have the obligation to face it.”

Mauri emphasized that Cuixart’s phrase “we will do it again […] is not just a slogan, but is a guide for the coming years. All rights are defended by exercising them. We have a duty of citizenship, of civic commitment and moral obligation to defend them when they are violated, tried or condemned.”

President Puigdemont’s Defense Denounces that “Some People in the EU Parliament don’t Act in Accordance with the Law”

Lawyer Simon Bekaert, one of Puigdemont and Comín’s lawyers, said in an interview for ACN that he hopes that the veto of the two elected MEPs by some members of the EU Parliament is “illegal” and warns that his team is ready to appeal to an instance such as the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) if necessary.

“We are aware that there are forces within the European Parliament and its administration that are trying to prevent that both Puigdemont and Comín from occupying their seats on July 2.” As to whether or not they will wait until day 2 to take legal action at European level, Bekaert merely said: “We will see.”

Whether or not to go to an international body and the legal strategy, he insisted, it will depend “on how the European Parliament reacts or does not react. We hope that they have considered the arguments we have made and that they comply with European law,” he says. In this regard, he emphasizes that it is not only a legal matter, but also one of “credibility and legitimacy.” If Puigdemont and Comín cannot occupy their seats, the institution will lose legitimacy as a democratic institution,” he warned, at a time when, according to him, “there are many people who have already lost faith in European institutions.” In any case, he says that if it arrives to the point where they should go to the Luxembourg court they will ask for a “quick resolution” because “there is much at stake.” “It is not a question of Catalonia or independence, but a greater concern: the legitimacy of the European Parliament as an institution and the fact that there are people trying to prevent elected MEPs from taking their seats,” he said.

For the lawyer, European law is “very clear in one thing: that members of the EU Parliament do not represent their country but the citizens who voted for them.” Thus, he recounts, European legislation says “clearly” that the European Parliament “must take into account the results of the elections and based on the results must declare the elected persons as members of the chamber.” In addition, he explains that all the members of the chamber “must act personally and without ties.” In this regard, he considers that the fact that they were obliged to abide by the [Spanish] Constitution “is clearly a violation of these principles.” “There is no other MEP from any other country that has to go to his country to make an oath of loyalty, therefore it is very clear that it is an illegal condition.”

The Spanish Judiciary Irregularities and the Protection of Freedoms and Rights

The President of the Spanish General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), Carlos Lesmes, has initiated a marathon of appointments of high judicial positions despite the fact that the council is pending renewal. He has already made the appointment of 13 of the aforementioned positions and plans to do about 25 more before August. The vacancies to renew include the presidency of the National Court and four seats of the Supreme Court.

Elisa Beni denounces in eldiario.es that this situation is unusual and “looks so bad that not only forces to question whether a CGPJ with pending renewal mandate can take these decisions that will tie his successors for five years in a body that will have a majority of progressive sensitivity, but also the anomalous way it is being done.”

She also regrets that “something so serious goes virtually unnoticed by the public as well as some politicians who do not see the seriousness of what is happening.”

The current Spanish judiciary is also currently deliberating on the sentences for the jailed Catalan leaders, who are expected to receive harsh punishments: sentences by up to 30 years in prison, for no apparent reason other than holding a depenalized democratic vote: a self-determination referendum.

Given the aforementioned anti-democratic moves, it’s not surprising that most Catalans support independence. The conclusion is clear: the Spanish authoritarian state is unreformable. Thus, the creation of a new state is a good opportunity for the Catalans to build a most prosperous and fair country where no one is above anyone else and all fundamental rights are respected.

The Independence Trial verdict, expected to be announced between July and October, will be another test of the strength of Spanish “democracy.” Because of several unfair verdicts in the past, the current Spanish Judiciary hasn’t given any reason for optimism – rather the contrary. So, pro-independence forces have the responsibility to find strategic unity leaving aside any kind of partisan division. It will be necessary to articulate a strong, peaceful and democratic response to the verdict in order to defend and protect the freedoms and rights achieved in the past by our parents, grandparents and ancestors.

It is important to remark that this democratic “battle” is not only about independence, but the protection of fundamental rights. These could be curtailed or even entirely eliminated by the Spanish State for many generations to come.

Authoritarianism VS Democracy

It’s still uncertain who will win this struggle, but it’s sure that everyone must choose one option to stand for and that the outcome will mark us as a society for many years to come.