Judge Aguirre rejects amnesty for Presidents Mas and Puigdemont
The head of the court of inquiry 1 in Barcelona, Joaquín Aguirre, has taken a decision on the amnesty for presidents Artur Mas and Carles Puigdemont. In a recent ruling, the judge rejected the application of the amnesty law to the two presidents, charging them with the crimes of embezzlement and treason, along with 11 other people, in relation to the alleged Russian interference in the independence movement. This information has been advanced by the newspaper El Periódico and confirmed by other sources.
Elevation of evidence against Puigdemont and De Dalmases in the Supreme Court
In addition to the decision on the amnesty, Judge Aguirre has decided to raise the alleged evidence against Carles Puigdemont and the deputy of Junts Francesc de Dalmases to the Supreme Court, since they are full. This decision opens the door for the high court to take over the investigation of the rest of the 11 defendants, whom Judge Aguirre considers to be ‘inextricably linked to the actions of the aforates’. The crime of belonging to a criminal organization is added to all of them.
Defenses reactions and complaints
The defendants’ defense have complained of several irregularities in the case. They have expressed their concern that the magistrate in the Volhov case is holding the case and not giving them the summary or the recent resolution. In addition, it does not raise its resources against the new investigation at the Barcelona Court. The defenses have also filed complaints against Judge Aguirre for prevarication. These complaints have been presented on behalf of President Puigdemont, the director of the President’s office and other defendants.
Context and political assessments
Judge Aguirre places the beginning of the alleged Russian interference in the Catalan independence movement on May 18, 2018, when the Gürtel ruling was handed down and the Spanish PP government of Mariano Rajoy fell due to a motion of no confidence in PSOE with the support of pro-independence groups. This political assessment is present in the judge’s decision, which has been presented to the Supreme Court.
