The Barcelona Court rectifies the judge and brings the mossos who helped Puigdemont a step away from trial
The investigating judge had dismissed the case
BarcelonaU-turn in the case of the events of August 2024, after its dismissal was decreed. The Barcelona Court of Appeal has now brought the three mossos d'esquadra investigated for collaborating in the escape of the former President of the Generalitat and leader of Junts, Carles Puigdemont, to the brink of trial, following his fleeting return to Barcelona on August 8, 2024, for Salvador Illa's investiture as president. Specifically, the court has opted for this path given indications that corroborate, in its opinion, that they omitted their duty to pursue crimes.
its dismissal was decreed. The Barcelona Court of Appeal has now brought the three mossos d'esquadra investigated for collaborating in the escape of the former President of the Generalitat and leader of Junts, Carles Puigdemont, to the brink of trial, following his fleeting return to Barcelona on August 8, 2024, for Salvador Illa's investiture as president. Specifically, the court has opted for this path given indications that corroborate, in its opinion, that they omitted their duty to pursue crimes.
In a ruling advanced by EFE, the court upholds the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the private prosecutions brought by Vox and Hazte Oír, and revokes the ruling in which the judge of Investigating Court number 24 of Barcelona had dismissed the case against the three indicted officers, after concluding that they had no obligation to arrest Puigdemont as they were not on duty. One of the mossos was on vacation, another on leave, and the third on sick leave, and the judge made it clear that there were no indications of any "link" to facilitate the escape.
The change is astronomical compared to the investigating judge's criterion when she declared the case closed and ordered its dismissal, ruling out any crime. Now, the arguments expressed by the judge are discredited, such as that it cannot be established that the officers took coordinated actions to prevent the arrest and that "mere presence" did not prove "prior agreement and preparation." Also, the reference to the lack of telephone communication with Puigdemont or the lack of receipt of "orders," in addition to the fact that the Penal Code does not punish "passivity" but rather sanctions "actions," and that no active conduct or abuse of public functions was approved. The Court of Appeal contradicts this point by point and now orders a ruling to be issued to bring them to the brink of trial, if there are no further investigative proceedings.
The Court of Appeal's account
According to the Court of Appeal, the fact that the police officers were off duty "should not be an obstacle to the appreciation of the crime" and refers to Supreme Court rulings stating that "police officers must always intervene in defense of the law and public safety". It also mentions "relevant indications" arising from the reports and videos that the internal investigation division of the Mossos provided regarding the reappearance and escape of the former president. Thus, it emphasizes that the images show the three investigated individuals "surrounding" Puigdemont, "at a very short distance from him, even reaching out to take his arm" to "help him advance in the crowd of people", in a procedure typical of "encapsulating" a "personality protection service".
The presence of the three officers extends to the Arc de Triomf in Barcelona, and their entire conduct leads the Court of Appeal to add that "the officers did not take the measures at their disposal to promote prosecution", and this could constitute the crime of omission of the duty to prosecute offenses, article 408 of the Penal Code, which provides for disqualification penalties.
On the other hand, it also provides details such as clothing with blue baseball caps, which it likens to a "security team". Another element it finds "striking" is that the investigated individuals were on vacation or leave, and it considers that the fact that there was no telephone contact between them on the eve of the events could be a measure of "basic security". However, the Court of Appeal does not see any crimes of disobedience or denial of aid. Nor does it see the crime of concealment in the officers' conduct because they "would not have incurred in the abuse of public functions".
