The demand of Carme Forcadell against her preventive detention is inadmissible according to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Forcadell not only denounced that her preventive detention wasn't appropriate (although the flight of several of her comrades before the courts began to search for them seems sufficient justification), but also denounced violation of fundamental rights of assembly and elections, in terms similar to those of the first demand that Strasbourg already rejected.
Having not been a joint decision, but adopted by a single judge, it wasn't made public in the same way as the resolution we already knew and the exact reason for the dismissal hasn't been disclosed, but the truth is that it was rejected in March, and the most probable reason is that the claim was considered inadmissible for not having respected the judicial instances, since before resorting to the Strasbourg court it should have been presented before the Spanish Constitutional Court. Having not followed this route, the ECHR has supposedly decided to reject the claim.
It's unlikely that Carme Forcadell's lawyer could disregard the order to be followed within the courts, so it's difficult to find a reason to file a claim that can't succeed. If we enter the field of speculation we could venture some hypotheses:
-
When filing the lawsuit, the lawyers only tried to generate a short-term holder and didn't really think about the judgment.
-
By resorting to Strasbourg without going through the Constitutional, it was intended to send the message that the legitimacy of the Spanish Constitutional Court or the Spanish Constitution was not recognized.
-
Corcadell's lawyer thought that Strasbourg judges would not be aware of the wrong procedure.
-
Forcadell's lawyer wasn't very good.
In any case up to now the independence movement is turning against the judgments of the ECHR, the most devastating being the first, which came to qualify as 'illegal' the referendum of October 1 and the action of the Spanish state as 'necessary'. And what is more relevant, it established these qualifications as the reference framework from which all future judgments related to the challenge carried out in the fall of 2017 would be analyzed.
In the case of the first widespread sentence, nationalism "counterattacked" with distraction maneuvers, giving maximum diffusion to a non-binding report calling for the "immediate release" of the prisoners, prepared by a working group that collaborates with the UN and that has Ben Emerson as a link with the external action of Catalan nationalism. In this case, it seems that more similar reports can't be preseented, so, given the prospect that the numerous complaints filed with Strasbourg following the 2017 challenge will return in the form of unfavorable sentences, the ANC and other secessionist entities are arranging transport for a demonstration in Strasbourg that they claim to be massive, in order to exert pressure.
