The United Nations Human Rights Committee considers that Spain has violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 by suspending four leaders of Catalan independence parties from their position as deputies in the Parliament prosecuted by the procés before being convicted of sedition for the organization of the referendum of October 1, 2017.
The Committee has today made public its decision on the lawsuit filed on December 18, 2018 by Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Josep Rull and Jordi Turull against Spain for their suspension as deputies by the investigating judge in the case, Pablo Llarena, by be prosecuted for rebellion (which requires a violent uprising) despite the fact that, as the agency acknowledges, they had urged citizens to remain strictly peaceful and that they were finally convicted in 2019 of sedition, which does not involve the use of violence.
The four were, and still are, Catalan political representatives of different pro-independence political parties who, as members of the government of Carles Puigdemont, organized the referendum on October 1, 2017, declared illegal by the Spanish justice system. The four had been criminally investigated since October 30, 2017 for the alleged crime of violent “rebellion” on the occasion of said referendum.
In the elections of December 21, 2017, the four candidates were re-elected in the Catalan Parliament as deputies. By decision of the investigating judge in July 2018 – and before any trial or judicial conviction occurred – they were suspended from their parliamentary mandates, by virtue of the Criminal Procedure Law, which allows the suspension of public officials when they are accused of rebellion, which implies a violent uprising.
The UN Human Rights Committee considers that the suspension of the rights and duties of parliamentary representation constituted a violation of Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the right of all citizens to be elected to public office. The committee emphasizes that this right “constitutes the essence of democratic government” and, although it recognizes that there may be certain limitations to this right, it considers that the serious restriction imposed by the Spanish justice system was unjustified.
In particular, the Committee considers that “the decision to charge the perpetrators with the crime of rebellion which automatically entailed the suspension of their public functions prior to a criminal conviction” fails to meet the requirements of the Covenant. Specifically, it considers that these restrictions on the exercise of functions of public representation must be based on legislative provisions “that are reasonable and objective.”
The ruling emphasizes that for “the suspensions of public functions imposed before the existence of a conviction, the standards necessary for the compatibility of these suspensions with the Covenant are, in principle, stricter than those that apply after the existence of a conviction. a sentence”.
In addition, the Committee notes that the Spanish courts convicted the applicants for the crime of sedition instead of the crime of rebellion on the understanding that the requirement of violence required by article 472 of the Penal Code was not met. In line with this, the Committee recalls that the rights guaranteed by Article 25 of the Covenant are closely related to freedom of expression, assembly and association and notes that the authors urged citizens to remain strictly peaceful and recalls that “there are a presumption in favor of considering gatherings to be peaceful” and that “isolated acts of violence by some participants should not be attributed to others, to the organizers or to the gathering as such” . And it adds that “several national and international organizations and entities have highlighted the peaceful nature of the actions carried out by the plaintiffs and other political and social leaders in Catalonia.”
Given this, the Committee concludes that “an application of domestic law that, automatically, leads to the suspension of elected positions, for alleged crimes based on public and peaceful actions, prior to the existence of a conviction, prevents a individualized analysis of proportionality of the measure and, therefore, it cannot be considered that it meets the requirements of reasonableness and objectivity”. For this reason, the Committee “considers that the information at its disposal reveals a violation of article 25 of the Covenant”.
According to the Committee, in this case, its conviction on the merits of the application constitutes sufficient reparation. However, it stresses that “the State party [Spain] has the obligation to take all necessary measures to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.” In this sense, it requires that the Spanish State provide information on the measures it has taken to implement the decision and guarantee non-recurrence within a period of 180 days. Spain is also asked “to publish the opinion of the Committee and to make it widely accessible”.
The opinions of the committee, a mechanism that defines itself as “quasi-judicial”, are not binding in principle, but it is considered that they should be taken into account by the signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (including Spain), Article 25 of which has been accepted by the complainants. “The committee is not a court but it carries out legal functions, issuing decisions and recommendations to the States parties that are expected to be put into practice,” clarifies this body.
The complaint was filed on December 18, 2018, coinciding with a visit to Geneva by the former president of the regional government, Carles Puigdemont, and the final decision is published on the day it is scheduled for the current head of that regional Executive, Pere Aragonès.
After learning of the ruling, Aragonès celebrated the “very important opinion” of the UN Committee. “The repression and violation of fundamental rights are lines that should never have been crossed,” he said on his Twitter account.
The president considers that “the arbitrariness of Spanish justice exposes the shame of the State in the eyes of the world.” Aragonés also recalls that “not only have the human rights of Junqueras, Romeva, Rull and Turull been seriously violated, but of all Catalans”. And he reaffirms his convictions “for democracy and freedoms.” “For amnesty and independence,” he concludes.
The plaintiffs have also celebrated this victory on their Twitter accounts. Thus, the president of the ERC, Oriol Junqueras, stressed that the resolution not only agrees with them but also “shows that Spain cannot continue with the repressive practices against the independence movement”. “The only way out is amnesty for all those who have been victimized, there are no excuses,” warns the Republican leader.
For the current secretary general of JuntsxCatalunya, Jordi Turull, this is a “new international victory of independence against the Spanish state and its repressors in toga”. “You must never give up work or hope,” he added. For his part, Josep Rull has said that the Spanish State violated their rights as representatives: “In the face of this squeeze, in a comparable state of law there would be devastating consequences.”
Finally, Raül Romeva complained that his political rights were violated and sees the ruling as “an important step for the independence movement and bad news for the State.” And it is that, after this report, the former minister believes that they cannot continue to be justified.
On behalf of the Spanish Government, the second vice-president of the Government, Yolanda Díaz, has spoken out, defending that the Government’s commitment to dialogue and pardons with the Catalan independence movement is “the right path”. When asked about it, Ella Díaz acknowledged that she had not been able to read the ruling of the United Nations Committee but that she would read it “very carefully.”
