The Supreme Court denied the claim for processing a complaint filed by an individual against the former president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont. The Criminal Chamber considers that the facts contained in the complaint against MEP by Junts are not a hate crime, but rather part of their ideological freedom and expression. The court is composed of Manuel Marchena as president and judges Julián Sánchez Melgar (speaker), Juan Ramón Berdugo, Carmen Lamela, and Eduardo de Porres.
The complainant maintained that Puigdemont encouraged, through messages broadcast and published through various social media, the commission of public disputes and actions taken against a part of the population of Catalonia. He noticed that his own family was suffering “acts of humiliation, throwing pots and pans and insults, and being called fascists by their neighbors”.
The court considered that the complainant limited himself to his written approval of the complaint that he presented on October 1, 2017, “the content of which appears in the records and does not relate to anything other than some historical events that have been judged by this Chamber as recognized by the plaintiff and judged by the well-known judgment of process that was issued on October 14, 2019. In addition, it states that the complaint is completed with a series of journalistic clippings that “do not contribute to the effects of the reported hate crime, the commission dedicated to the defendant, which is procedurally subjected to other accusations in the investigation phase.
The Chamber concluded that what the complainant explained against Puigdemont cannot be classified as a crime because there is no evidence to reach that conclusion, “not even for the mere introduction of temporary purposes that justify an investigation, because anonymously a vulnerable group is attacked through hate speech, which are political pretensions to liberty, which in themselves is not a crime, provided that the border of violence or unilaterality…
The vehicle to which you have access THE GOAL added that, as the Public Prosecutor’s Office points out in its report and as stated in a Circular from the State Attorney General’s Office, it is not even enough to express hateful ideas or opinions to commit this crime, but it is necessary to encourage or encourage the subsequent commission of acts of discrimination so that there is a real risk of doing so, and more Since the indirect motivation is sufficient, it must be public and have sufficient potential to endanger the affected groups.
The magistrates considered that “the messages expressed by Puigdemont himself in his statements did not fulfill the general attitude expressed but rather fell within the limits of showing their freedom and expressing ideology. This car saw the light the same day the Supreme Court asked the Public Ministry if you needed to do the investigation on TsunamiDemocrats, the reason Judge Manuel García-Castellón is investigating the former president of Catalonia and 11 other independence supporters for terrorism.
The same court that refused to open a procedure against Puigdemont for possible hate crimes dictated an order for the Prosecutor’s Office to evaluate the competence and content of the reasoned statement sent by the head of the Court of Instruction number 6 of the National Court. Appoint magistrate Juan Ramón Berdugo as the speaker, who must propose whether his acceptance is appropriate. The Public Ministry has appealed the order in which the judge ordered the investigation of terrorism against the former president.