The deputy of the CUP Eulàlia Reguant has filed an appeal for amparo before the Constitutional Court for the sentence for serious disobedience imposed on her by the Supreme Court after not answering the questions of the popular accusation of Vox in the process trial. The anti-capitalist leader alleges a violation of fundamental rights, including the right to effective judicial protection.
During the trial of the process in the Supreme Court, Reguant attended as a witness at the request of the defenses. There he refused to answer the questions raised by the popular prosecution, represented by Vox. Court no. 10 in Madrid investigated the case, which also affected former CUP deputy Antonio Baños for the same events. As a result of her condition as a member of hers, for being a deputy in the Parliament of Catalonia, the judge raised the case to the Supreme Court, which last October sentenced Reguant for a crime of serious disobedience and a fine of 13,500 euros.
Now, the CUP deputy goes to the Constitutional Court claiming a violation of the right to effective judicial protection and the presumption of innocence, the right to freedom of expression, criminal legality and the right to ideological freedom or conscience.
In the appeal presented, the defense alleges, among other things, that he did not personally alert the deputy of the legal consequences of not complying with the order that he was disobeying. He also complains about the "undue delays" that, according to the cupaire, were not justified and caused "unnecessary damage".
In his brief, the defense assures that the deputy did not refuse to testify in the trial, but only declined to answer Vox's questions directly, although he offered to answer if the president of the Court, Manuel Marchena, reformulated them. Reguant touches on this issue because, in her opinion, she did not hinder the functioning of the administration of justice.
The challenge states that the CUP leader did not want to respond to Vox because the fact of "normalizing" the presence of this party would have caused her "undeniable moral damage", an aspect that falls within freedom of conscience.
The judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, released on October 7, determined that Eulàlia Reguant's refusal to “comply with the court's mandate” was “evident and unequivocal, clear and patent”. In addition, it verified that the deputy's attitude was "fully considered and determined", as well as that the legal consequences imposed did not obey Reguant's ideological position, but were directed "to the duty of collaboration with justice and respect for the principle of authority and public order.
