The Tsunami Democràtic case instructor at the Supreme Court, Judge Susana Polo, has taken the expected step of summoning former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and parliament deputy Rubén Wagensberg to testify as suspects in a terrorism investigation. The hearings will be conducted via video conference between June 17 and 21, as both suspects are currently residing outside of Spain. Puigdemont, who has been evading justice since 2017, recently relocated to southern France, while Wagensberg has been in Switzerland since January. The recent move of Puigdemont to France changes the dynamics of the case, as legal cooperation will now be with France instead of Belgium, potentially enabling smoother proceedings.
Judge Polo has issued a European Investigation Order and an International Judicial Cooperation Request through Eurojust, as she officially does not know the whereabouts of Puigdemont and Wagensberg. The hearing dates are left open for agreement between Spain and France. Puigdemont’s summons as a suspect was expected since the case was opened in February, and although it was initially seen as a formality unlikely to result in his appearance, the decision to summon him via video conference presents a new scenario. Puigdemont may now consider attending the hearing under these circumstances.
The legal basis for the summons is a recent legislative modification allowing for preferential use of remote testimonies and proceedings. However, Puigdemont’s attendance at the hearing remains voluntary, and the Supreme Court cannot take action against him if he chooses not to appear. In that case, Judge Polo would continue with the investigation and decide on further steps. If Puigdemont becomes a Catalan parliamentarian by then, no extradition request would be necessary due to parliamentary immunity.
The recent summons is the first action taken by Judge Polo since taking over the Tsunami case investigation. The decision to investigate Puigdemont and Wagensberg for terrorism was based on evidence of leadership and intellectual authorship of violent acts attributed to Tsunami. The terrorism investigation complicates the application of the amnesty law to Puigdemont, as the law excludes terrorism offenses aligning with European directives that may apply to Tsunami activities. Ultimately, the application of amnesty to Puigdemont will be subject to the determination of the Supreme Court’s Penal Chamber.
In conclusion, the Tsunami Democràtic case continues to unfold with the interrogation of key suspects, including Carles Puigdemont and Rubén Wagensberg, conducted through video conferencing. The legal proceedings and potential implications of the investigation for Puigdemont’s amnesty status remain to be seen as the Supreme Court navigates the complex dynamics of the case. With significant implications for the application of amnesty and the broader legal approach to terrorism-related offenses, the Tsunami case stands at the intersection of political, legal, and diplomatic complexities in the Catalan context.
