Arderiu says Carme Forcadell is being judged "not for what she did, but for who she is"

In her final conclusions, Olga Arderiu, the defence counsel of Carme Forcadell, has stated that the prosecution of her client has violated the principle of legality because her parliamentary immunity has not been respected.

On Wednesday, Arderiu presented her report after Marina Roig, the attorney of Jordi Cuixart, who defended that the exercise of fundamental rights must be above the unity of Spain.

 

"In the deed for this trial we have been told that we are not being judged for an ideology, that political programmes are not being judged. Well, the prosecutions continue to defend that one of the key documents is the single roadmap, which becomes the project for JxSí in its agreement. What is it, then? Is an ideology being judged or not?"

With regard to the charge of rebellion against her client, Arderiu complained that the other members of the Board of Parliament who adopted the same decisions as her were not included.

Beyond that, the attorney stated that this accusation is in breach of the law as it does not respect the parliamentary immunity she had as a member of parliament and as speaker of Parliament.

 

"Not for what she did, but for who she is"

In this regard, she stated that the parties to the prosecution are making up crimes that violate both fundamental rights and the Constitution itself, and that her client is being judged "not for what she did, but for who she is."

According to her, the parties to the prosecution have been unable to prove anything against her throughout the entire trial: 

"This leads us to wonder: if no meetings, Whatsapp messages, email messages or telephone calls between Forcadell, the government and the associations have been proven in 50,000 sheets of paper in the case and 50 sittings on trial, how did they collude? Telepathically?"

"Ms. Forcadell did not participate in the decision to call a referendum. Forcadell did not even participate in its direction or its preparation, and she did not participate in meetings with state law enforcement corps, even though attempts have been made to make her appear where she was not."

 

Arderiu added that the parties to the prosecution are taking advantage even of the fact that Major Trapero asked for her presence in the meeting of 28 September with Puigdemont and Junqueras as evidence against her, even though she did not attend the meeting.

 

 

Neither in "Enfocats" nor in the Moleskine agenda

Arderiu pointed out that not even the famous Enfocats document nor the Moleskine agenda, which are crucial for the prosecution, feature Forcadell as a person "promoting" the referendum:

"Enfocats, we were told by the secretary of the reports, which dated this document, which does not bear a date, to the second semester of 2016. In any event, upon reading it, it seems to be later than the September 2015 elections as it refers to them. Therefore, and without the intention to give it any validity, the strategic and executive committee does not contain the name of Ms. Forcadell nor her position as Most Honourable President of the Parliament of Catalonia."

"With regard to the Moleskine agenda whose author, I would like to add, is unknown to us, if it is the comments and ideas of the author that are reflected in it, a careful reading of it reveals that Ms. Forcadell did not attend the meetings and did not participate in government meetings."

 

The Constitutional Court was "politicised"

The attorney said that the Constitutional Court that asked the Parliament not to debate independence - which she has described as "censorship", was presided by a member of the PP political party:

"It is the first time the Constitutional Court, contrary to its prior jurisprudence, had decided to declare a political resolution unconstitutional, and it was a Constitutional Court presided by Mr. Francisco Pérez de los Cobos, the brother of the coordinator Diego Pérez de los Cobos, that did so."

"Mister Francisco Pérez dels Cobos was a member of the PP and he remained so even after being appointed to the Constitutional Court. This is only an example to highlight the politisation of this organism which largely explains its behaviour."

Arderiu added that the parties to the prosecution have "magnified" or "exaggerated" Forcadell's conduct, and has stated that what the Constitutional Court asked the board of Parliament was "beyond its scope of competence".