Spain's Supreme Court has already sent its definitive report on the Catalan referendum of 1st October to the German judges hearing the extradition case against Catalan president Carles Puigdemont - and it insists that the elements required for offences of rebellion and misappropriation of public funds were present. The Schleswig-Holstein High Court, which is hearing the case, had requested this complementary information in order to make its decision on the European arrest warrant hanging over the exiled Catalan leader.
The Supreme Court document, revealed this Tuesday by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper, justifies the accusation of a charge of rebellion against Puigdemont and affirms that the president's involvement in the actions that constituted this offence "was maximum, because he was the person who, due to the post that he occupied, had full responsibility over the course and direction of events". As well, the Spanish court's text asks the Schleswig-Holstein judges not to undertake an in-depth appraisal of the matter nor to be concerned to establish the compatibility between the Spanish and German criminal codes, but only "to decide whether the actions would constitute criminal offences in their country".
Additionally, the Supreme Court insists on the accusation of rebellion not being confined to the events on the day of the referendum and the confrontations at polling stations, but rather that it includes all that took place from the beginning of the independence process, "with reiterated disobedience of the resolutions of Spain's Constitutional Court".
In parallel, a second, briefer Supreme Court report, also sent to the German judges, focuses on the supposed existence of an offence of misappropriation of public funds for the referendum.
This second document considers that both the public spending that actually took place as well as the payments that the Catalan government was committed to making can be considered to be part of the alleged offence. The Spanish court's thesis is that to lay a charge of misappropriation of funds "it is not a necessary condition that the spending has taken place, but rather it is sufficient for the commitment to have been made with the company or entity providing the service". It is therefore considered by the Supreme Court that if there are goods that have not been paid for, but which were ordered, the actions can still be criminally pursued.