Carles Puigdemont's Belgian lawyer, Paul Bekaert, has affirmed in an interview with the Catalan News Agency that his client must "stay in Belgium until Madrid becomes reasonable" and argues that he can be invested as president by remote means or using a written declaration. Despite this, however, he specifies that the decision to stay or to go home belongs to Puigdemont himself and admits that he has not talked to him about the scenario of returning to Catalonia. He argues that if the Catalan Parliament decides to make him president it would be "completely legal", since as long as he is not convicted of a crime "there is no legal basis to refuse his investiture".
In this respect, the lawyer warns that a possible suspension of Tuesday's planned parliamentary session by order of the Spanish Constitutional Court would be "against parliamentary democracy". In the interview he also considers that Spanish justice "is not objective" and accuses Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena of making "a political judgement" by denying the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office to reactivate the European Arrest Warrant aimed at the detention of Puigdemont. "You normally consider the arrest of a person on legal questions, not on political strategy", he affirms.
Bekaert argues that his client "has the right to speak to Parliament" because he "has been chosen, he is a candidate and it is a democracy". He denies that the president does not have his full rights and says that he does not know any article in the constitution or Spanish law "that gives sufficient basis" to claim this. "As long as he is not convicted he has all his rights, he has the right to remain in Belgium and the fact that there is a national arrest warrant for him in Spain does not mean that he has a duty to go there", asserts the lawyer. "That is for him to decide. If he goes to Spain, he will be arrested as long as there is an arrest warrant for him", he emphasises.
In this regard, the lawyer affirms that as a lawyer his objective is for the JuntsxCat candidate to avoid prison, which he remarks is "important" so that he can continue to practice politics. "The main objective [of Puigdemont] is to be president and in prison he can't do that," he remarks, "it's impossible". He believes, however, that the candidate is waiting for the arrest warrant to be withdrawn or cancelled and, if this is the case, he will be able to go home. According to the Belgian lawyer, even though the decision to withdraw the warrant is in the hands of Spanish justice, "politicians can create a climate that allows the judge to free him".
The European warrant and Spanish justice
Asked whether he believes that Spanish justice is independent, Bekaert suggests that it is, but puts in doubt that judges can "leave aside" their own opinions and believes that justice is not objective. "They used the European Arrest Warrant to carry out politics", he says, "and the convention about the European warrant says clearly that it must not be used for political purposes". With respect to this, says the lawyer, he saw a "political judgement" in the decision made by Supreme Court judge Pablo Llarena on the request to activate a European Arrest Warrant during Puigdemont's trip to Denmark. "The political opinion of the public prosecutor and of the judge can be read in their pronouncements", he states.
On the possibility of a second European Arrest Warrant being issued if Puigdemont and the rest of the Catalan deputies stay in Belgium, Bekaert views it as possible but not very likely. "If they didn't accept the issue of a warrant to Denmark, I don't see why they should do it", he says. Moreover, he says that in general terms, if an extradition has been rejected once in Belgium, a second attempt will be as well. On the other hand, the lawyer refuses to speculate on whether there will be more journeys like the trip to Denmark: "I don't know, that is up to his political agenda".
A not-very-democratic European Union
The lawyer says that what has shocked him most about this case is the fact that "in Europe it was possible to put eight government ministers in prison". "This is not about Catalonia or about the independence of Catalonia but about democracy and it is because of this that it has shocked me", he affirms. He is very critical of the EU and blames the European club's passive stand with respect to Catalonia on three factors. Firstly, that some EU countries are young democracies. "Europe is not making these countries more democratic", he says, warning that democracy on the continent is "in danger". According to him, part of the reason why there no indignation about the situation is that "people don't want human rights, they want security".
Secondly, Bekaert highlights the fact that EU president Jean-Claude Juncker belongs to the conservative group, the European People's Party (EPP). "If this was Poland, it would be decided that the government had to be punished because democracy was in danger. If it was Hungary, they would not interfere there, the same as in Spain. Why? It is simple: in Poland the Christian Democrats are not in power", he says.
The third motive, in his view, is that there are states with internal problems that could be shaken up by the situation in Catalonia. In France or in the United Kingdom, he suggests, there are the Corsicans and the Scots, and because of this, these states "do not sympathize with the Catalans". "For one thing they want to stand together with the EPP and as well they don't want these problems to spread to their own countries", he concludes.
The route to Strasbourg
Finally, asked about the possibility of taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights, Bekaert considers that "right now" it "is too soon to do that". "First you have to begin appealing to the courts of the country concerned, you have to exhaust all avenues, and then if there is no solution, you can appeal to Strasbourg", he explains. Even though he admits that the process is long he also says that taking this route is a possibility, mentioning that the Strasbourg-based court has already given judgements about members of parliament who have not been able to practise as such in Turkey.