Observers state that Marchena allows "the trivialisation of the violence" of 1-O

The team of international observers that is following up on the trial of the pro-independence leaders accused of rebellion has published its report on the fourth week of the public hearing on Monday.

The observers, organised in International Trial Watch, have especially criticised the presiding magistrate of the court, Manuel Marchena, because they ensure that he has "repeatedly" interrupted the defences and prevents them from seeking out contradictions in witness accounts:

"The credibility of witness accounts cannot be rigorously verified if their statements cannot be cross-examined with other questions, with the display of documents or video material, materialising the principle of contradiction in criminal jurisdiction."

"This especially happens whenever the subject of police violence against voters on 1-O emerges."

ATENCIÓ‼️[Obrim fil👇]

Valoracions del judici 1-O (Setmana 4):

➡️ El president, en reiterades ocasions, interromp els i les lletrats/des de les defenses en els seus interrogatoris a testimonis, especialment quan assenyalen contradiccions. pic.twitter.com/mLMqrU2Xib

— International Trial Watch (@InterTrialWatch) March 11, 2019

"Trivialisation of police violence"

According to their statement, this happens when Marchena also "repeatedly" prevents the defence counsels from questioning and cross-questioning the witnesses that have been put forward by the parties to the prosecution:

"This manner of managing the trial, which precludes the verification of the credibility of some testimonies and in which the presiding magistrate freely limits questioning, is allowing, among other questions, for the trivialisation of the police violence deployed on 1 October 2017."

Observers also criticise that "so many questions" have been allowed on the functioning of the Parliament of Catalonia, and state that this "reveals the fundamentally political nature" of the trial. They add that all of this "casts doubt" on the right to defence and to a fair trial.

"Dubiously spontaneous accusatory narrations"

Another reason for complaint is that the testimonies have "previous information" from prior testimonies, especially with regard to police commanders, "in hierarchical order from top to bottom":

"They were making their statements after having previously had the chance to listen to what their superiors had stated, thus being able to construct dubiously spontaneous accusatory narrations, as required by jurisprudence emanating from the Criminal Proceedings Law."

The observers' report highlights that Marchena did not ask the questions legally bound to ask to some of the witnesses. They also highlight the fatigue of the accused, who have already spent several weeks with very long schedules and few hours of rest:

"The accumulated fatigue of sittings can have a significant impact on their ability to follow and prepare their defence with their legal counsels."

This week, the observers who followed the sessions of the trial in the Supreme Court were Hadi Cin, a Turkish member of European Democratic Lawyers, Gustavo Palmieri, from the Centre of Legal and Social Studies of Argentina, Mònica Aranda, a professor of criminal law in the University of Barcelona, and Jorge Correcher, also a professor of criminal law, in this case, in the University of Valencia.