News

Legal action against policing of demonstrations

In an evaluation report of legal actions against police misconduct in Barcelona, presented by Jaume Asens of the Commissió de defensa del drets de la persona del Collegi d´Advocats de Barcelona (Barcelona Lawyer´s Association Commission
In an evaluation report of legal actions against police misconduct in Barcelona, presented by Jaume Asens of the Commissió de defensa del drets de la persona del Collegi d´Advocats de Barcelona (Barcelona Lawyer´s Association Commission
In an evaluation report of legal actions against police misconduct in Barcelona, presented by Jaume Asens of the Commissió de defensa del drets de la persona del Collegi d´Advocats de Barcelona (Barcelona Lawyer´s Association Commission for the Defence of Human Rights) at a meeting of the Commission for the Defence of Human Rights in Globalisation held in the Catalan city on 25-26 April 2003, a number of issues arising from demonstrations held on 24 June 2001 and 15 March 2002 were examined. The first demonstration saw over 60 persons injured as a result of riot police charges against the main demonstration. This had been largely peaceful, though some violence had occurred in the form of vandalism. Asens asked why the police intervened only after the vandalism had occurred, without taking any action to prevent it; why several journalists were assaulted (with a journalist and cameraman detained); and why several witness accounts (including by MPs) agreed in suggesting that policemen armed with bars had acted as “agents provocateurs”. A case was brought against Julia García Valdecasas, the Delegada del gobierno (government representative), and several high-level police officials using the acción popular process, whereby members of the public can exercise a role as prosecutors, with the participation of over 60 organisations. The charges were shelved due to the “failure to identify the disguised police officers”, in spite of over 100 testimonies, 13 hours of video recordings and photographic material documenting the excesses of police action, and an appeal against the closing of the case has now been filed. Nonetheless, Asens feels that the case helped to provoke a debate around the “limits of police action” and the “wide margins of discretion or impunity” that it enjoys. For example, as there is no way of identifying riot police officers, it is impossible to attribute offences to anyone, even if their occurrence has been proven. The demonstration attended by 500,000 persons in Barcelona on 15 March 2002 saw 52 persons injured and 112 arrested (some of whom alleged ill-treatment while held in Verneda police station). In this instance, activity by lawyers included the setting up of legal teams, and the provision of legal defence at borders, as a response to the ever-increasing practice by EU states of closing borders when they stage events that may be the focus for protests. The refusal by Spanish border guards to allow 750 Portuguese demonstrators (including MPs, one of whom was ill-treated as he tried to intervene on behalf of demonstrators) to cross the Spanish-Portuguese border in Rosal de la Frontera caused a diplomatic row. The Commissió de defensa del drets de la persona del Collegi d´Advocats de Barcelona filed a lawsuit, again through the acción popular process, against the contravention of the exercise of the right to free movement, which does not allow a collective refusal of entry. Suits have also been presented against the refusal to allow a Belgian and a Spanish lawyer into Spain. “Fabrication” of offences against demonstrators With regards to the defence of persons detained on the demonstration, Asens notes that it had positive results, with many having the charges against them dismissed, or being found not guilty in court. Irregularities, malpractice and false statements by police officers have also been alleged by judges. In one instance, where a demonstrator was arrested after seeking shelter from clashes in an ATM machine outlet, the accused was found not guilty and police officers were accused of fabricating an offence. In fact, after being arrested for participating in disturbances, an additional charge of “possession of explosives”, in the for