Jaume Asens arrogates for the commons the original idea about the reform of the crime of sedition, as well as the path traveled to date for the deflation of the Catalan question, which has gone through the implementation of a table of parties between governments and the concession of pardons. Both PSOE and ERC have made a trip to convince themselves of the suitability of his proposal, according to what he says.
Will this agreement to reform the crime of sedition improve relations between Catalonia and Spain?
It was a necessary step to recover democratic normality, the climate of understanding and address the open political conflict in Catalonia since the political and judicial right broke the territorial pact of the transition by annulling the Statute. From now on, a path is cleared where dialogue and understanding are easier. Any resolution of the conflict had to go through its dejudicialization and first it was the pardons, then the negotiation table and now the crime of sedition. We presented ourselves with these proposals and at first we defended it alone, but in the end, the road map that the commons drew is the one that is making its way.
Do people understand that the reform of this crime is now addressed? Is it hard to convince that this matter should never have ended up in the hands of justice?
It is an opportunity for politics to regain prominence and put revenge and prosecution aside. The political conflict had been sub-delegated to the judicial powers, but the judges have to stop being the main scriptwriters of politics in Spain. For too long, the judges, controlled by those who are controlled, had become the protagonists, so I think this is a victory for politics. Politics is there to solve political problems and it is done with dialogue and agreements, they are not resolved by resorting to the courts. The time of togas and batons had to be replaced by that of dialogue and politics.
How have the negotiations gone? Who has had to convince whom?
The role of ERC has to be recognized. It has been essential for him to press from the outside, in the same way that it has been essential for us to do it from within. Everything has accelerated this last week, although we had been in negotiations with the PSOE for three years, but no one is unaware that this has gone ahead because we are in government. At the time, the PSOE was talking about the fact that Puigdemont had to be arrested by helicopter, that there was a problem of coexistence in Catalonia, that the sentence had to be carried out, it was against pardons, and it did not pick up the phone from the president of the Generalitat. There is a substantial change between that PSOE that wanted to agree with Ciudadanos and now. It satisfies us.
And ERC hasn't changed its mind?
Both have changed their minds. The PSOE started from a minimum proposal, which only reduced the crime of sedition, and the ERC did not consider this option at the beginning and only wanted to talk about amnesty, nor did it want to talk about pardons because it considered that it meant asking for forgiveness. The ERC also did not see the reform of the crime of sedition as viable because they considered that the TC could overthrow it, which is not true because it is up to the legislator to decide what is a crime and what is not. It has taken a maturation process on the part of both and now it is necessary for the majority to leave.
Will it be in force at the end of the year really? What will it depend on?
Its viable. It will depend on the negotiations that take place now. If the agreement is made quickly and easily, it can be approved before the end of the year.
Before presenting it, did they consult with the rest of the usual partners of the Government?
There have been informal contacts and we more or less know what each one's position is. I think it will be easy to build an absolute majority but we will see if the amendments that are presented bring us closer or further away from the agreement.
What responds to the substitution of the crime of sedition for that of aggravated public disorder?
They are not replaced, they pursue different facts. The Supreme Court and its prosecutors have already said that the events of 2017 could not be framed in the crimes of public disorder and there is a particular vote of a magistrate of the TC that justifies it. But there is a degree of uncertainty on the part of those who must apply the law and sometimes they make very voluntarist and imaginative interpretations that misrepresent the letter of the law. This has happened with the crime of sedition and that is why Congress had to take the floor again, because the Supreme Court introduced a new crime, changed the law and invaded the competence of the legislator.
An anomaly has been corrected, they say, but does the risk of framing what happened in 2017 in other crimes disappear?
The judicial leadership, which is in the hands of whoever is, could make a twisted interpretation and frame the facts in another crime. But the independence movement has also made the mistake of confusing the State with the Government. Many times the State can operate against the Government and sometimes things are asked of the Government that do not depend on it.
What does this new crime of public disorder specifically pursue? Perhaps that another unilateral referendum cannot be held?
This has been pursued before. You cannot invade a building with force or violence and get away with it. It is not a novelty. What varies is that mass disorders will have a different penalty. The substantial difference is that sedition is related to rebellion, but after Tejero's coup it goes to a different chapter. But public disorder is another frame.
If the crime is being standardized in Europe, will Puigdemont's extradition be easier?
Extraditions are based on the facts, not criminal types. When Germany denies extradition, it is because the facts for which they are accused in Spain are not a crime in Germany. And when Belgium denies it, it does not even get to the bottom of it, it denies it based on a question of jurisdiction, saying that the Supreme Court is not competent to judge him.
You have always said that there will be no solution if a solution is not found for Puigdemont. Would embezzlement reform be the way?
You have to go step by step. It is true that we do not like how the crime of embezzlement is worded. It has to exist because it pursues corruption, but in the case of the 'procés' it is considered an instrumental crime, that is, as a necessary means to commit the other crime, sedition. In addition, it was the PP who modified the crime in 2015 after the 9N consultation because Artur Mas could not be convicted of embezzlement. It seems to us that the previous criminal type was more guaranteeing than the current one and we would see it well if it were redrafted to differentiate between whether there is personal enrichment through embezzled assets or not. The important difference is whether there is a profit motive or not and on 1-O there was not.
As a criminal lawyer, would you advise Marta Rovira to return to Catalonia when the reform is approved?
It is something very delicate. Without sedition, I believe that public disorder does not fit the facts for which she is accused and surely the facts are prescribed because five years have passed. It is something very personal and she has to decide it, but it is evident that the scenario is more favorable now
Will this reform improve relations with ERC? So far there have been many reproaches between you and Rufián and the Republicans' attacks on Yolanda Díaz...
Relations between ERC and the commons are very good. ERC is the main partner in the Barcelona City Council, in the Generalitat we also reached important agreements and in Congress as well. It is true that Rufián has his style and perhaps it would not be the best possible relationship, but as a party, they are very good.
Will there be budgets in Catalonia, Spain and Barcelona as a result of this reform?
We are in a moment of crisis and we should all make an effort so that we all have budgets. They are the main roadmap of a government, the runway for European funds for Spain and Catalonia, and the Catalan budgets depend on the Spanish and if there are no Spanish budgets, the funds will not reach Catalonia either. It would be irresponsible if there were no budgets in Catalonia or Spain in an inflationary scenario and with the effects of the war. It should be noted that the coalition government has approved three budgets in a row in a timely manner and is surely the most stable government in the last 10 years.
