Comunicate Enric Duran: Before a trial that could become a farce Disobedience, the only option to guarantee my rights will be respected today

The three judges of the court of the second section of the Provincial Court have decided the trial scheduled to start on Tuesday morning can’t be suspended.

They haven’t seen enough reason to delay the trial in the fact that I don’t have a new defense after having lost confidence in my previous lawyer for not having told me about the trial date 4 months ago, when it was called for, but just three weeks ago.

Although the right to a defense is a fundamental right recognized by all constitutions and treaties, they prefer to see trying to change lawyer with such short notice as procedural fraud, after so many years of waiting the slow judicial process, when, as is evident , the fact that I have such late notice from my own lawyer has generated the helplessness that I have encountered.

Anyway, perhaps this decision should come as a surprise because, according to the order of October 4 that I could not access until less than three weeks ago, acceptance and revocation of witnesses has been as follows:

Prosecution witnesses, accepted 15 of 15.

Defense witnesses, accepted 0 of 23.

As can be seen in this judicial process, the arguments to justify this disproportionate decission are scarce. I will quote a paragraph, from the own court, because I think it talks for itself.

«It proceeds to deny the totality of the witnesses number 1 to 23 for the defense of the accused Mr. (Enric) Duran Giralt» because they have no relation at all to the delictive doings attributed to himself. As a start, something should be said, so obvious, that shouldn’t even be mentioned. What constitures the object of trial are the alleged documental falsifications, as a medium to obtain the alleged frauds against several banking entities by D. Enrique (Enric) Duran Giralt, as well as the crime of punishable insolvency attributed to himself. We are not judging the conduct attributed to the banking entities, so all the witnesses proposed with the goal of acrediting what the defense qualifies as abusive banking practices are unnecesary and impertinent.

Under the same pattern, we are denied every and each of the witnesses, repeating in texts of one or two lines the mantra: “as they don’t have any relation to the given facts”

And with this action, it’s the court itself who is infringing on my right to a defense. And they do it because it contradicts international treaties signed by the Spanish state as the International Pact for Civil and Political Rights, that says in its article 14.3, e:

«All person accused of a crime has, during the process, in total equality, the guarantee to interrogate or the accusation witnesses or have them interrogated, and to obtain the comparecency of the defense witnesses and to have them interrogated in the same conditions as the accusation witnesses.»

But, above all, they infringe on my right to a defense, because they are prejudging me when they don’t let the argumentation presented in the defense letter to be corroborated through the different witnesses that had been selected for their knowledge and experience, and who could demonstrate that my decision to execute the action of monetary reappropiation of the banks money, was motivated by an state of necessity. An state of necessity coming from the fact of knowing from reliable information, already in the year 2005 that banking credit without control would end in a great economic crisis that would fest against the social rights from the mayority of the population.

The state of necessity is a criminal defense of first grade, and the whole defense goes around demonstrating this situation of defense was existing, as expressed among others in the fourth article from the writing to the court.

Fourth. – Circumstances able to modify the criminal responsibility. Accordingly, and in the negated situation that the actions of Enric Duran could be thought to satisfy any kind of penals of which he is accused, the total exemt from Article 20.5 of the Penal Code would apply, as has been explained in the first conclussion, with all its requisites. It’s collected in the following article:

»Are exempt from criminal responsibility:

Who, in an state of necessity, to avoid an own or foreign evil, would injure the legal property of another person, or infringe in a duty, as long as the following requirements are fullfilled:

1. The evil caused is not greater than the one tryienrichahstagSing to avoid.»

2. The sitiation of necessity was not caused intentionally by the subject.

3. That the one in necessity doesn’t have, by virtue of office or position, the obligation to sacrify himself.»

I think at this point it’s pretty obvious , in light of the events happened in the last years, that the evil I was trying to avoid was such and so big any action was small to try and do something. So great, that the state of necessity is at least an argument to consider, instead of despise and ignore it even before the trial has started, as this court has done. A court that wants to carry a penal trial in which I can be sentenced to 8 years in prison, withouth having known the date in appropriate time, without a lawyer I can trust, without witnesses and so, without a way to justify the state of necessity as a way to get exempted from prison. What do they want to do?

In front of all this facts, I think the situation that can be given in this trial, can just have one name, a show trial. According to Wikipedia (

The term show trialweight: normal is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial in which there is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the&The actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than correctional justice and also conducted for propagandistic purposes

So, before a court that passive and active, has demonstrated they are willing to go over my fundamental rights. What should I do? Should I stay and hope for one time the court will accept my requests where they have not been accepted before? And what could I do if it wasn’t like this? Reclaim in front of the constitutional court? And how long would it take to answer? And during that time, where would this judicial impunity take us?

I understand that if I participate in today’s trial, I can be affected of an illegitimate judicial action, maybe even a delictive one. I conclude the best decission I can take is not to go there, and to make use then, of social disobedience, in respect of my fundamental rights.

In my absence and without the capacity to directly exercise their coercion against me, the court will have this morning their last opportunity to rectify and accept the trial suspension in base to my rights, or to criminalize my decission and protagonize a new forwar flight.


This post is also available in: Catalan, Spanish, French

Speak Your Mind