The Prosecutor’s Office defends that Alberto Rodríguez may only be disqualified for 45 days: “Neither more nor less”



The one who was a deputy of United We Can and Secretary of the Organization of the ‘purple’ formation, Alberto Rodriguez, has sent a letter to the Central Electoral Board (JEC) in which it requests its president to issue a certificate that clarifies the dates of compliance with the penalty imposed by the Supreme Court of special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage.

In a two-page letter, to which Europa Press has had access, the legal representation of the former deputy indicates that the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office itself, in a report dated November 2, 2021, indicates that the special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage “Deprives the convicted person, during the time of the sentence, of the right to be elected to public office.”

The Supreme Court sentenced Rodríguez to a prison sentence of one month and fifteen days for the crime of attacking an agent of the authority in a demonstration in 2014, with the highly qualified extenuating circumstance of undue delay. The sentence carries the accessory of special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage during the time of the sentence. In the ruling, the High Court decided to replace the prison sentence with the penalty of a fine of 90 days with a daily fee of 6 euros (in total, 540 euros).

After initially the Board of Congress did not consider, after listening to the lawyers, that he should finally leave his seat, and after a letter from the president of the Chamber to the president of the Second Chamber of the High Court, it was decided to execute the sentence and replace the deputy.

Now, the defense of Alberto Rodríguez, who has abandoned his membership in Podemos, recalls in his letter that the JEC itself, in an agreement dated October 27, indicates that “he will not be able to participate as a candidate for electoral processes during the period of the sentence imposed. in said sentence. So he asks to be told when he meets that period of a month and a half.

The report of the Prosecutor’s Office

On the other hand, in the report drawn up by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, to which Europa Press has also had access, and in which it informs the Chamber about the request of the former deputy that the execution of the sentence be suspended provisionally, the The Public Ministry says that it cannot satisfy that request because that request must be made through the legal form of the appeal for annulment, which is regulated by article 241 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ), and they are referred to such precept.

“Nothing and no one has prevented such procedural representation from articulating it – the appeal – knowing as we suppose that it is known that the sentences handed down by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court in a single instance do not have an ordinary appeal,” adds the prosecutor.

Regarding the request that the defense made to the Supreme Court to urge Batet to execute the sentence as established in the sentence, the Prosecutor’s Office says that this request “exceeds” the powers of the Supreme Court according to current legislation.

The Public Ministry also clarifies that the accessory penalty of special disqualification for the right to passive suffrage is set according to article 44 of the Penal Code, which says that it deprives the convicted person during the time of the sentence of the right to be elected. “This means in terms of the execution of the sentence, the court (…) will carry out a settlement of the sentence, indicating as the starting day the one provided by the corresponding body of the Congress of Deputies.”

“Settlement that will be communicated to said Congress and that means solely and exclusively that during the period of one month and fifteen days that is set (…) Mr. Rodríguez will not be able to appear for public office. No more, no less, “he says.

They add that the consequences that a conviction may have in other areas “exceed the jurisdiction of the criminal courts and that the decisions adopted must be challenged through the corresponding jurisdictional means, which” in no case is the criminal one.

See them

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *