"They committed torture and inhuman treatment": the 46 police officers who participated in the October 1st protest appealed for amnesty.

BarcelonaÒmnium Cultural, the ANC and Irídia move to annul the agreement the amnesty granted to the 46 national police officers prosecuted for the violence against the voters of the 1-O referendum in Barcelona. The organizations announced this Thursday the filing of several appeals before the Supreme Court to withdraw the pardon for the officers, which was upheld by Barcelona's 7th Court and later confirmed by the Barcelona Court of Appeals. The filings before the high court accuse the police officers of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and emphasize that these are crimes that cannot be protected under the amnesty law.

"The police brutality of October 1st was an absolute act of state barbarism, a premeditated humiliation and a deliberate punishment against citizens exercising fundamental rights," the court denounced. in a statement the president of Òmnium, Xavier Antich. The entity, which is acting as a private prosecutor, alleges that the force used by the officers was "disproportionate, excessive, and caused serious injuries." "The police acted with the clear intention of humiliating and punishing citizens who freely and democratically wanted to exercise their rights," Òmnium ruled, classifying the police action as crimes of "torture or degrading or inhuman treatment."

"The abuse of power and the unjustified violence exercised against citizens who were demonstrating peacefully and democratically cannot be amnestied," it added. the ANC, which is also a popular accusationIn his brief to the Supreme Court, in which he points out the possibility that the officers also committed crimes against moral integrity, he argues that the application of the amnesty in this case is inappropriate, "especially when the police actions did not have a legitimate or proportionate purpose, but rather sought to intimidate, humiliate, and punish."

In a similar vein, fromIrídia, who acts as private prosecutor, conclude that "the police charges of 1-O may constitute inhuman or degrading treatment and cannot be amnestied according to international law." The entity, in fact, recalls that in the order of the judge ofopening of the oral trial against the agents It was stated that the charges during the referendum were "objectively capable of humiliating or degrading the person," a "key term in international human rights law for defining prohibited treatment," as emphasized in its statement.

When it finally had to decide on the amnesty, however, The judge considered that the agents could benefit from it because the charges investigated were "of short individual duration, framed within a defined police objective" and that "they did not continue once it was achieved." The judge ruled out any serious injury caused by the violence exercised against the voters and determined that the acts investigated did not exceed the seriousness necessary to be excluded from the amnesty application, a conclusion that the prosecution rejects in its appeals.

The international letter

In Òmnium's view, seeking amnesty for the perpetrators of police brutality against the referendum is "one more act of irresponsibility" by a state that has no problem "breaching international conventions and treaties for the defense of human rights." "We will not allow it," Antich emphasized. Irídia, in fact, is already advancing that all avenues will be exhausted and, where appropriate, will resort to international bodies to "guarantee the right to justice and reparation for the victims." For the time being, the three entities are addressing the Supreme Court and are doing so in a coordinated manner with other affected individuals who, through their lawyers, have also decided to appeal the amnesty for the national police officers.

Unlike what happened with these 46 officers, the Barcelona Court ruled out amnesty a few months ago. The four police officers prosecuted for gouging out Roger Español's eye during the referendum. The court sent them to trial because the amnesty law excludes intentional acts that are not due to negligence or that have resulted in the loss or uselessness of an organ or limb, as the judges emphasized in their ruling.