The Supreme Court has confirmed the new indictment issued by the instructor Pablo Llarena regarding Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, Lluis Puig and Clara Ponsatí after the Government repealed the crime of sedition and modified the embezzlement of public funds.
In a resolution, the Appeals Chamber dismisses Vox’s appeal that sought to prosecute for public disorder, maintaining it for disobedience. And in the same way it has dismissed the resources of the “rebels” in the case as soon as it confirms the non-acceptance of the transformation of embezzlement into the attenuated subtypes included in the reform of the Penal Code.
It is pointed out by the Supreme Court that it is not possible to transform sedition into the crime of public disorder. As he explains, the elements of both criminal offenses are different. The order under appeal places him more accurately in the crime of disobedience.
“The defendants deployed and promoted civil disobedience and an institutional insurrection aimed at altering the constitutional order, without any call for violence, not public disorder through violence,” the three magistrates point out.
But it is that, in addition, it is emphasized that this same thing has already been resolved by order of the trial court in February, with respect to those already tried in the same case in this same line of excluding public disorder before the repeal of sedition.
The Supreme Court of Appeals also reiterates that, as the order of the trial court already indicated, the embezzlement reform does not alter the prosecution for this crime. In his opinion, the mention of the profit motive that appears in the new wording does not alter it, just as it is not possible to include the facts in the new attenuated subtypes.
The trial court has already indicated it in these same terms that the appeals chamber now reiterates. “The reform of LO 14/2022 does not blur the scenario of the present case, since the modification of the criminal type of article 432 of the Penal Code has not modified the reasons for the prosecution, nor can it lead to the mitigation that is pursued to the modification towards article 433 or 432 bis as already stated by the trial court”.
