Eulalia Reguant, sentenced to pay 13,500 euros for not answering Vox during the ‘procés’ trial

The Supreme Court dismisses his attitude as “stubborn” and “totally thought out and determined” and the conviction for serious disobedience After his refusal to answer as a witness, the Supreme Court offered him the option of doing so in writing, and he also rejected itThe sentence rejects his argument for freedom ideological and conscientious objection 13,500 euros is the price that the deputy of the CUP Eulalia Reguant will have to pay for not answering the Vox lawyers during the procés trial. That is the amount that adds up to the nine-month fine – at a rate of 50 euros a day – that the Supreme Court has imposed on her after convicting her as the author of a crime of serious disobedience. On February 27, 2019, he refused to answer Vox that it was a popular accusation, despite the warnings of the president of the Court, since the witnesses do not have that right that the accused do have. The court, in a sentence that has Judge Susana Polo has been a rapporteur, concludes that “the attitude of the accused in refusing to comply with the court’s mandate has been evident and unequivocal, clear and patent”, and it was not only expressed in the act of the oral trial where she was summoned to testify as witness, but also in the brief presented by her procedural representation on April 22, 2019, in response to the court’s agreement of April 10, 2019, which required the accused to state whether she agreed to testify again in the manner provided by law , or persisted in its refusal to answer the popular action, opting for the latter. The court emphasizes that, in this way, Reguant’s opposition to answer was “stubborn”, “totally thought out and determined”, with an attitude of open and persistent refusal to assume the duties that the Law imposes on witnesses. In addition, it underlines that the defendant’s disobedience is especially serious since the protected legal right is not only the principle of authority, as in the rest of the crimes of disobedience, but also indirectly violates other legal rights of great importance in the case of not complying with a court order, such as the proper functioning of the Administration of Justice, public order and the right of defence. Regarding the allegation of the defense of ideological freedom and conscientious objection as a justification for her conduct, the court answers that the defendant “clearly crossed the limits of her ideological freedom and conscience, and was not facing a lawful exercise of freedom of expression, clearly limited in this case to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary on which society must have clear confidence, being necessary to guarantee it to set limits, witnesses having to abide by the legitimate orders given by the courts” . In addition, the court recalls that “there is no general right of disobedience backed by any constitutional or legal provision, on the contrary, the current law, democratically legitimized, has a general mandatory effect and not only with respect to those who agree with it.” It adds that “the criminal reproach is not based on the ideological position of the accused, but is directed to the duty of collaboration with justice, and respect for the principle of authority and public order.” Fine, not imprisonment Regarding the sentence to impose, the Chamber points out that there are no reasons to opt for the most serious legal provision in this case, which was imprisonment “not only because it is a custodial sentence, but also because of the accessory consequences that it entails – special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage during the time of the sentence -, therefore, not violating the principle of proportionality of the sentence in relation to the right to political participation that is invoked by the defense, since we opted for the imposition of a fine”. Regarding the amount of the fine, it indicates that the imposition of nine months is proportionate, very close to the legal minimum limit, and of 50 euros/day, “since it is adjusted to the economic capacity of the accused, in attention to the amount of income that Ms. Reguant must receive, as a deputy of the Parliament of Catalonia”, an amount that, although it is significantly higher than the legally established minimum (two euros/day), is also very far from the maximum limit ( 400 euros/day).