The head of Barcelona’s investigating court number 24, María Antonia Coscollola, has dismissed the case opened against three Mossos d’Esquadra officers accused of having helped the former president of the Generalitat, Carles Puigdemont, during his fleeting visit to Barcelona on August 8, 2024, coinciding with Salvador Illa’s investiture session in the Parliament as president of the Generalitat.
This is agreed by the magistrate in a document in which the total and provisional dismissal of the proceedings against the three officers is decreed. They were accused of having allegedly acted in concert to prevent Puigdemont from being arrested and thus enable his escape, despite an arrest warrant issued against him by the Supreme Court. The judge, who in early February decided to extend the investigation for six more months, points out that “as of today, it has not been possible to confirm” that the three investigated Mossos officers carried out acts “jointly and coordinately to prevent Puigdemont’s arrest and enable his escape.” “There is not enough evidence to affirm that there was a link between them aimed at achieving this objective, nor that for this purpose each of them had assumed their own and complementary task within the set of actions,” emphasizes the investigating judge.
The investigating judge rules out that the three investigated Mossos “carried out acts of assistance to favor the former president’s escape”
The judge details that the mere presence of the investigated individuals in the Arc de Triomf area does not indicate that they helped the former president escape, nor does the existence of images showing them accompanying him in the moments before he went on stage allow for the conclusion that they participated in the escape. The testimony of several officers who participated in the initial investigation explains that the three Mossos “could have given the impression of being attentive or observing what was happening,” but they did not see them “carrying out acts of material assistance or favoring Puigdemont’s escape and flight.” In fact, the judge points out, “the witnesses ruled out active conduct by the investigated individuals that could have criminal relevance.”
The case included videos showing the investigated officers in the Arc de Triomf area from which the former president fled. For the judge, these images only prove “the presence of the investigated individuals at the scene” alongside thousands of demonstrators. “The only thing that material demonstrates is the presence of the investigated individuals in the Arc de Triomf area, without police insignia, without operational functions, without regulation weapons or any type of equipment.”
Read more Barcelona will send the registration certificate ex officio to non-EU citizens
Read also
Furthermore, the investigating judge highlights, it must be borne in mind that none of the three public officials were exercising their duties at the time of the events, nor did they have direct authority to act. “One was on sick leave, and as for the other two, one was on leave and the other on vacation.”
Although there are images showing the three officers accompanying Puigdemont and, apparently, giving him protection, the judge considers that “no conduct of the investigated individuals that would have effectively contributed to the former president’s escape has been individualized.” Another element highlighted by the magistrate is that the investigated individuals “lacked the authority to order the arrest” and also did not receive any instructions to carry it out. The Mossos investigation, carried out by the Internal Affairs Unit, included the interception of the defendants’ mobile phones, but “no communication was found between them or with any number linked to Puigdemont between August 8 and 9.”
Read also
The three officers were arrested on the same day of the events and were investigated for the alleged commission of a crime of concealment, although popular accusations, such as Vox and Hazte Oír, demanded that they also be charged with a crime of disobedience and another of denial of assistance. The judge emphasizes that “there was no formal and legitimate request to the investigated individuals to provide assistance to justice and that they unjustifiably refused.”
Read more Classic sophistication and urban freshness for a stylish spring
