Español's defense appeals to Marchena to dismantle the police version of 1-O

BarcelonaJudicial timing had willed that the final session of the trial against the national police officers who took out the eye of activist Roger Español would be held on October 1st, nine years after the day of the referendum in which the pro-independence activist was mutilated. The session began with a delay: it was suspended until one in the afternoon because the accused inspector had alleged "a health problem" and resumed when he returned from the hospital. All of this has caused the trial to finally have to end on Friday. Thursday's session featured statements from the inspector in charge of the operation, two sub-inspectors, and the shotgunner who fired at Español. However, these statements were overshadowed by the final closing argument of Español's defense: it was based on "intent" regarding the intentionality and repetition of the police officers who mutilated him—which justifies the exclusion of the application of the amnesty law—and even resorted to a ruling by Manuel Marchena and another that was issued for the case of Esther Quintana.

In his report, lawyer Benet Salellas recalled 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 do not have 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 motivated the ban on 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 at less than 50 meters" 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 gravity" of the apocalyptic situation they described, with a "throwing of paving stones" that was not proven, but also because of the distance of the shots, which they saw as appropriate for the situation. They also clung to the fact that they used the ricochet to fire. Their goal was to avoid prison.

Intent, argued

Salellas explained that "the accused knew he could cause the harmful result" with a "voluntary shot" from which he "disassociates himself"; and that "the result was not unimaginable", among other things because rubber bullets "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 action" of the 1st of October itself, since on Sardenya street it was "the only place where rubber bullets were used". All this "to punish" the activist at a time when "there was no danger".

And this is where all the provided videos come into play. "The police have not obtained images confirming that there was any throwing of cobblestones in the final section," Salellas pointed out. And he further added that there is a "in crescendo of police activity 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 exposed because, according to Español's defense, "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 final section of Sardenya street" either. 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 firing, being another key point.

For Salellas, seeing citizens with their arms raised was not "an extreme danger" such as to shoot 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, the violence must be "the least" for the intention and using the "least dangerous means" and "in the least harmful way". The activist's representatives also pointed out the orders of the operational chiefs despite the short distance.

The version of the police

The version of the riot police officer, Israel Ramos, was based on justifying his actions by the fact that he was "following orders". However, when asked if one should fire in case of doubt about the distance, he stated: "In case of doubt I would not fire". All the police officers who testified said that they were perfectly trained and that they learned to perform "the bounce" and nothing more.

In their opinion, it was justified to fire "around 15 meters" and they claim they took enough precautions, even though the experts demonstrated that the eye injury could be caused equally by firing towards the ground. The defense's thesis is that a previous incident would have triggered the desire to teach him a lesson, which would be supported, additionally, by the fact that the officer fired three times towards the area of Español.

However, Inspector Ángel Diego Vaquera –number 73861–, has admitted, in turn, that general orders to fire do not mean they must be executed because there is the "capacity to decide not to fire" on the part of each riot police officer depending on the context, "in case of doubt" and taking into account the "principle of minimum intervention". One of the points that the defense of the inspector and the rest of the agents has tried to push is that the Mossos reported that the Spanish police officer did not aim directly at Roger Español.