A TEAM of international observers has said they found “serious irregularities” in the trial of Catalan independence leaders and said it “does not offer the necessary guarantees to describe it as just”.
The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EuroMed Rights) yesterday published their report on the Spanish Supreme Court trial, claiming that police witnesses relied on “stereotyped testimonials”.
“Can one ... security forces official say something other than what his superior said one day before?” they asked.
“As a result, during hearings to witnesses, the same speeches are often repeated as stereotypical statements, which puts into question the spontaneity and veracity of statements.”
The report carried out in collaboration with International Trial Watch (ITW) saw more than 60 observers from five continents attend the trial.
They said an essential element was missing – the principle of contradiction – which, they said, “should allow each party to express themselves and bring to light the truth of the alleged facts”.
The presentation of videos of events surrounding the October 1, 2017 referendum, were only introduced in the last days of the trial, which “made it impossible for a true discussion to take place” or any debate on the principle of contradiction.
Media organisations who broadcast the trial were praised for their transparency, but the observers wondered why witnesses did not follow the sessions before they appeared, and “statements could not be counteracted by new ones, interrogations or with the videos posted at the time they declared”.
Videos of some of the protests held in the run-up to the poll did not show “violence or tumults” said the team, but demonstrated “massive and peaceful” manifestations.
If there were altercations, they described them as “minor, very insignificant, without the use of weapons, and in any case they can be classified as crimes of public disorder that are neither rebellion nor sedition” – the charges for which the accused were tried.
“For this reason, the international arrest warrants and the prolonged provisional prison of some defendants also seem disproportionate measures, as a consequence of the exaggerated rating of the acts as a rebellion crime, and a violation of the right to freedom, as established by the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Observers were also critical of the court president Manuel Marchena, who behaved in a “military” fashion, “improvising the calendar and not allowing debate”.
The team also believed that some of the prosecutor’s evidence was based on research focussing on previous events which were “alien” to the case.
“Therefore, the observers consider that the conditions for a fair trial are not fulfilled due to the absence of a contradictory debate, the multiple and repeated violations of the rights of the defence, the multiplicity of procedures and the use of documents of other unfinished investigations of which the defence had not been informed,” they concluded.
The report came as the provincial electoral board told Catalan state broadcaster TV3 and Catalunya Radio that use of the terms “political prisoners” and “exile” were prohibited in the run-up to Spain’s general election on November 10, along with any mention of the “Council of the Republic” – the body set up in his Belgian exile by former president Carles Puigdemont. This ruling came in response to a petition from the right-wing Citizens party, which also wanted a ban on the use of “police repression” or “referendum on October 1”.
The board said the terms “exile” and “political prisoners” violated the principle of political pluralism, but the professional councils of TV3 and Catalunya Ràdio said the resolutions were “acts of censorship incompatible with respect for freedom of expression and freedom of the press”.
Author, journalist and broadcaster in Catalonia, Tim Parfitt, noted on Twitter: “Are we still allowed to call Catalonia ‘Catalonia’?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel