BarcelonaThe judicial timeline had willed that the final session of the trial against the national police officers who blinded the eye of activist Roger Español be held on October 1st, seven years after the day of the referendum in which the pro-independence activist was mutilated. Despite the delay and the unforeseen events, which have caused it to finally end on Friday, this Thursday's session was enlightening with the testimony of the inspector in charge of the operation, two sub-inspectors, and the shotgunner who fired at Español. But their statements were overshadowed by the closing argument of Español's defense, which was based on "intent" due to the intentionality and repetition—which justifies excluding the application of the amnesty law—and even resorted to a ruling by Manuel Marchena, as well as another that was issued for the Esther Quintana case.
Lawyer Benet Salellas appealed in his report to recall the eventual intent that was ratified by a ruling of the Supreme Court magistrate, which confirmed a conviction for two Mossos, arguing that "when the perpetrator subjects the victim to a situation in which they lack the security of control, it is imputed in terms of eventual intent." He also recalled the Quintana ruling, a victim in the 2012 general strike of an identical mutilation, in this case by the Catalan police, which led to the banning of the projectiles. This resolution considered that there was intent—even though it acquitted the accused because it did not identify them—among other things because "it reprimanded that shots had been fired from less than 50 meters away" from the activist, prohibited by the force's protocol, which multiplied the severity of the action. In Español's case, it occurred at 14.12 meters.
In contrast, the accused hid behind the "extreme severity" of the apocalyptic situation they depicted, with a "throwing of cobblestones" that was not proven, but also because of the distance of the shots, which they saw as appropriate for such a serious situation. They also clung to the fact that they used the ricochet to fire. Their goal was to avoid prison.
The intent, argued
Salellas explained that "the accused knew that he could cause the harmful result" with a "voluntary shot" of which he "disregards"; and that "the result was not unimaginable", among other things because "it had been banned by Parliament due to the known danger". However, he commented that there is a "disapproved risk" because it "contravenes the circular" for the use of the weapon, which dictates normal use at more than 50 meters, when it was fired at less than 15; and because it is "alien to the average performance" of the 1-O itself, since on Sardenya street it was "the only place where rubber bullets were used". All this "to punish" the activist at a moment when "there was no danger".
Here all the provided videos come into play. "The police have not obtained images that confirm that in the last stretch there was any throwing of cobblestones", he pointed out. And he further added that there is a "in crescendo police action precisely when there is a lull in the protesters". The disproportion, which links to the grief, stems from the strange circumstance that only "eight seconds pass between the batons and the volleys" prior to firing rubber bullets – and even an officer confirmed that the orders were simultaneous. The absence of progression and the images that contradict the Spanish police leave their account bare because "no image allows one to see a barricade", which would be the phenomenon that could allow the use of the rubber bullet at more than 15 meters. The fences that were moving did not happen "in the last stretch of Sardenya street" either, and this area only left one injured police officer, who "did not file a report" and who communicated it to the court more than a year after the events. The images also allow one to see that there was an injured person and that they continued shooting, being another key point.
For Salellas, seeing citizens with their arms in the air was not "an extreme danger" such as to shoot wildly in the way it was done. The lawyer for Irídia, Anaïs Franquesa, further added that the previous mass sit-in was peaceful in nature and that the police disproportion already came from there and multiplied afterwards. According to the jurisprudence provided by the lawyer, violence must be "the least" by intention and using the "least dangerous means" and "in the least harmful way". The activist's representatives also pointed out the orders from the operational chiefs despite the short distance, as well as the fact of not stopping colleagues who were in sight despite the high-risk shots.
The police, cornered
The riot policeman, Israel Ramos, has been cornered; but not only him. He said he was "following orders", but later uttered a phrase that will haunt him when he was asked if one should fire in case of doubt about the distance: "In case of doubt I would not fire", he insisted. Everyone said they were perfectly trained and commented that they learned to do "the bounce" and that was all.
In their opinion, it was justified to fire "around 15 meters" and they say they took enough precautions, even though the experts demonstrated that the eye injury could be caused just as well by firing at the ground. A concatenation of elements to avoid prison and enter into the amnesty in case they ended up convicted. It is necessary to prove the intentionality and the cruelty against Español and until now the officers have made it clear that "one cannot practice" shots with bounce. But the defense's thesis is that a previous incident would have triggered the desire to punish him, something that would be supported, furthermore, by the fact that the officer fired three times towards Español's area.
And yet another element, which in this case harms the riot policeman: according to inspector Ángel Diego Vaquera –number 73861–, the general orders to fire do not mean that they must be executed because there is the "capacity to decide not to fire" on the part of each riot policeman depending on the context, "in case of doubt" and taking into account the "principle of minimum intervention". Thus, the riot policeman is in a critical situation. One of the points that the defense of the inspector and the rest of the officers has tried to push is that the Mossos reported that the Spanish policeman did not aim directly at Roger Español.
Be that as it may, there have been several plot twists in the session: it was suspended around eleven o'clock because the inspector had specifically alleged "a health problem", but it resumed at one o'clock after returning from the hospital. Now it will be necessary to see if he does not return to the hospital, but rather to prison, as well as his three companions.
Pro-independence support for Roger Español
Before the session began, there was a pro-independence rally in support of Roger Español with Òmnium, the ANC, Irídia, Junts, ERC, and the CUP. In a statement to the media, Español emphasized that he intends for the four accused police officers to be convicted, and therefore, for the "police brutality" of the State to be condemned as well. At the same time, he vindicated the October 1st referendum and called for rubber bullets to be banned, as did Carles Guillot, another mutilated person and founder of Stop Rubber Bullets. Meanwhile, lawyer and director of Irídia, Anaïs Franquesa, asserted that all "expert evidence" has been collected to achieve a guilty verdict.
In parallel, the presidents of Òmnium and the ANC, Xavier Antich and Josep Vila, defended that the independence struggle "continues" and expressed their support for the activist, just as the secretary general of Junts, Jordi Turull, did, stating that "it is regrettable" that justice has not yet been served "nine years later".
