One of the conservative prosecutors of the Supreme Court who yesterday opted to prosecute former president Carles Puigdemont for terrorism, Salvador Viada, accused the Spanish government this Wednesday of having made “interferences” in his work and of not respecting the majority criteria of the representatives of the public ministry in the Supreme Court. “They have given us a covert 155,” he said in an interview on Onda Cero, recalling that now the final criterion will be in the hands of the lieutenant prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Ángeles Sánchez Conde, appointed by the previous state attorney general, former minister Dolores Slim.
Viada stated that at this Tuesday’s meeting of the Board of Prosecutors that overturned the report of the prosecutor against investigating Puigdemont for terrorism, Álvaro Redondo, he defended his position for an hour and a half, but his arguments did not convince, because, according to He said, his judgment “was not correct.”
According to Viada, the instruction by National Court judge Manuel García-Castellón provides data on the commission of the crime of terrorism, because Tsunami intended to “force the State to change its mind.” “From a criminal point of view the issue is not complex,” he said, assuring that in the Tsunami actions there were situations in which there were “some cases of attempted homicide.”
Once the Board of Prosecutors of the Supreme Court overturned the report against prosecuting the Tsunami for terrorism, the issue will be in the hands of the lieutenant prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Maria Ángeles Sánchez Conde, who will impose her criteria on a hierarchical body. This is because during the meeting this Tuesday there was a disagreement between both heads of the Board of Prosecutors. On the one hand, Fidel Cadena, in favor of persecuting Puigdemont, and on the other Joaquín Sánchez-Covisa, who spoke out against it.
According to Viada, “in recent times” the Spanish Government is putting prosecutors against the wall and forcing them to choose between “silver or lead.” “When they attack us, they attack an interpretation of the law that until now was peaceful,” and they do so “for overtly political interests,” she said, to “ensure a parliamentary majority.” “When we see these kinds of things happening, it worries us,” she concluded, and “we keep our interpretation of things straight.”
