December 14, 2019

Non-partisan and pluralist communication and debate platform

Home » Content » Javier Melero: “Disqualifying Spanish justice could not bring anything good”. The defender of Quim Forn in the cause of 1-O talks about his strategy, the ins and outs of the trial and the sentence in his new book
The trial as a procedural device was fair. In your book it is to be noticed that the relationship with Judge Marchena is fluid, and with prosecutors as well? The relationship is correct, professional, I know them from other trials, they don't come from Mars. International campaign to disqualify Spanish democracy and justice could not bring anything good? I think so.

Silvia Hinojosa, Barcelona

11/27/2019 06:00 Updated on 11/27/2019 12:43 PM

“I was already famous well before the trial”, says Javier Melero, defender of former counselor Quim Forn in the cause of the procés. He Is right. He had prestige in the legal field and among those who need a lawyer. And also for his students at Pompeu Fabra University. But his incisive style, his elegant irony in the interrogations, delighted those who followed the sessions in the Supreme Court. Now Melero publishes a book, El encargo (Ariel), in which he tells about the ins and outs of the trial, one of the most covered by the media in recent years.

Are you still going around the trial?
Every time I remember less, but I’m still going around.

Do you think you could have done something different?
No. I did everything I could, but the result was not what I thought was appropriate.

And which one was right?
Condemnation for disobedience, those who had disobeyed. On the embezzlement I do not pronounce myself because this is nothing to do in regard to Forn. At the most, and I put it into my final report, I was willing to admit, even if I thought it was not the case, a cooperation to public disorders.

Cooperation because the disorders belong to the people?
The disorders are of the people but there is a crime, of 2015, much discussed, which punishes the one who psychologically reinforces the willingness of another to commit public disturbances.

The sentence

“It is not satisfactory, it is very vague about sedition”

In the end it was sedition.
The sentence is not convincing about sedition, it is very short, very generic, very imprecise. It is not satisfactory.

You exercised a technical defense, others made it political, but none worked.
I agree that they did not work, but in Madrid they argue that the outcome we got was much better than the one we could have expected instead. There are those who consider, not me, that the technical path has made great progress in this trial.

Forcing sedition

“In Madrid many thought that they could not get away with”

Do you say it because the sentence could have been for rebellion?
Many people think, and it is evident in the Madrid media, that this sentence is an insult to democracy, to the Constitution, to the King.

But crimes have to fit in a criminal type, it cannot be said that since sedition is little, I upgrade to rebellion.
Indeed, it has to fit in. And this one did not fit. They had to rule the rebellion out, it was impossible. And I think sedition too.

His role in the trial

“Vanity is inevitable, but I am healing from its wounds”

Do you think it was a fair trial?
The trial was. The trial as a procedural device was fair. Amnesty International says the same as me: fair trial, unfair sentence.

Knowing the sentence, you valued that there was a percentage of lesson, why?
The only explanation I have left is for the court to consider that what happened was very serious, so serious that even by forcing the meaning of the crime of sedition it had to fit it in. I have collected a lot this opinion in Madrid, even among left-wing professionals or sympathizers with the ways of dialogue with independence: the idea that what happened was very serious and they could not let getting away with it.

But the sentences are not to scare, they have to adjust to the crimes committed.
Indeed, but it is what they think.

Criticism of Òmnium

“They seemed to be more for the discourse of the resistance than for the interests of the defense”

How was the relationship with the other lawyers?
Well, very correct.

You did not coordinate.
Yes, we coordinated on what was necessary. There was no contradiction. And all defenses were necessary. The one made by Benet Salellas (Jordi Cuixart’s lawyer), based on fundamental rights, had to be done by someone. And also what I did, of the typicality of rebellion and sedition.

And was this distribution of roles implicit or agreed?
It was evident where each one would go, it was not necessary.

In your book it is to be noticed that the relationship with Judge Marchena is fluid, and with prosecutors as well.
The relationship is correct, professional, I know them from other trials, they don’t come from Mars.

With Marchena you talked about boxing.
He has an encyclopedic knowledge of boxing, especially Canarian boxing.

Different treatment

“The difference between Borràs and Bassa is that one was a 21-D candidate”

You practice it and open each chapter with a phrase from a boxer.
It’s just that boxers always say interesting phrases. Soccer players just say nonsense, “whatever the coach says”, “in the locker room we are very cohesive”. Instead, boxers always say things with grace.

And do you have a favorite phrase?
One from Mike Tyson: “Everyone has a strategy until I hit the first punch”. We talked about that a lot with the prosecutors and Judge Marchena.

The book is critical of some strategies of the independence movement, have they harmed prisoners?
I do not know. Some prosecutors and judges said that it hurt them, I don’t know if they lied and their situation would have been just as bad, whatever other people said. For them it was a demonstration, a judge told me that the rebellion continued, it was not over in November.

You say that the international campaign to disqualify Spanish democracy and justice could not bring anything good. Do you think that influenced?
I can think, and I think about it, that I couldn’t bring anything good. But these are also things that they tell me there. In addition, there is a resolution from the Supreme Court Appeals Chamber, for example, which is very hard on the international positions that are being adopted.

And when you talk about Òmnium you say that ‘they seemed willing to make every effort to get them convicted,’ do you see it that way?
It seemed, sometimes it seemed that the discourse of resistance was much more important than the interests of the defense. It was hard for me to understand Òmnium because I had an image of civic association, literary awards, defense of Catalan, and suddenly I saw them with the will to be a very active, very radical political subject.

Risk of escape

“Llarena told me that those who left hurt the others”

You recommended Meritxell Borràs not to run for the 21-D elections, she listened to you. Forn ignored you. Did you think that participating in politics was not going well for the defense?
Let’s look at the situation of Meritxell and her cellmate in Alcalá Meco, Dolors Bassa, Let’s look at how it all has finished for each of them, and think what makes them different.

Bassa allowed the use of the premises for the referendum.
But that would be embezzlement, in any case. What differentiated them so that the prison for  Dolors Bassa was decreed in March 2018? The only difference I am able to see is that one was a candidate on 21-D elections and the other was not.

You met with prosecutors in order to ask for Forn’s freedom before the trial and told them he would not run away. Fidel Cadena replied that they also thought the same of those who had escaped.
Yes. And I don’t say that. I was told that by both the Llarena instructor and this prosecutor. That those who had escaped had harmed those who had stayed. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but at least it was the excuse they used.

In court

“Politicians must be stopped when they are going to testify”

Under prison regulations, prisoners may access permits and the third degree. Will they have to recognize the crime?
No, the permits are ex officio starting after the fourth part of the sentence has been complied with. But I don’t want to get into that because I can harm them.

You have prepared many politicians for an interrogation. They are used to speak and before audiences.
Yes. They talk a lot and also believe they speak well and are very convincing.

And you have to stop them.
Yes, because they are aimed at a very special audience, and their usual resources don’t work there. His political effusions or his sentimental eloquence there is useless.

In your book you like to introduce each character with some descriptions of Raymond Chandler’s style.
That’s right, I’m a big fan of Raymond Chandler.

It’s like a tribute, those descriptions…
Yes, ha ha, when I say “he was a robust guy…”

How has your life changed after the trial?
Not much, it was one more trial.

Have you upgraded your professional fares?
Not at all.

You acquired a lot of notoriety.
But notoriety will pass, fame is ephemeral and that is closely linked to the presence in the media.

You will have won more customers.
I already had, I was already famous before the trial

But not for everyone.
Well, at least for those who need a lawyer.

And how do you deal with vanity?
Vanity is inevitable, but one heals from it.

https://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20191127/471891747692/entrevista-javier-melero-juicio-proces-1o.html

OpenKat

View all posts

Add comment

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