1 – “In no way this court agreed to accept or reject any competence: the police is the one who has to put detainees in the appropriate court.”
2 – “No alteration happened in the normal operation during the session of the Congress on 25 September. Moreover, a deputy, in turn of fixing positions, said that ‘Congress has been able to maintain its activity quite normally.”
3 – “With the information given above, as noted in the first of these legal arguments it can not be seen that the defendants, nor others who were identified in these proceedings in its initial phase, have committed the crime against the state institutions.”
4 – “No way, the police unit can ‘steal’ specific facts attributed to specific individuals who are known by a court in order to make another court be aware of them, it is clearly an excess in the functions of the judicial police.”
5 – “Article 493 of the Penal Code punishes those who invade with force, violence or intimidation the Congress headquarters. Obvious, this crime could not be committed by the imputed here, especially if the call is not saying anything about it or something close, considering that invade is to enter violently in a place, as for the Congress would be the building, rather, not the side streets. “
6 – “Article 494 of the Penal Code punishes those who promote, direct or preside demonstrations or other meeting at the Congress headquarters, when assembled, disrupting its normal operation. Well, we know, also view the minutes of the meeting on the 25th, that consecuecional element of this offense is not met, then there was no change whatsoever. “
7 – “The fact convene under the slogans of surrounding, stay indefinitely, demanding impeachment and break the current regime by the resignation of the entire Government, dissolution of the Parliament and the Head of State , abolition of the current Constitution and begin a process of establishing a new system of political, economic or social in any way can be an offense, and not only because there is no such crime in our criminal law, but because of existing undermine clearly the fundamental right to freedom of speech, then we must agree that it should not be prohibit the eulogy or defense of ideas or theories, even if they are away or even call into question the constitutional, even less, to prohibit the expression of subjective opinions about historical events or currently especially with the decline of the so-called political class. Moreover, Ms. Government Delegate noted, she did not prohibited what the call wanted, also indicating the way to do.”
8 – “Nowhere in the call made by platforms in question indicates entering in the Congress with weapons or instruments for that purpose. And in regards to requests, there was no one, just a reading of a proclamation in the palisade that surrounded the Congress that Ms Government Delegate moved it to the Neptuno square “.
9 – “The security perimeter, it suffices to observe in the photos, is away from Congress, not being regarded as part of the Congress building or headquarters. And, even more, can not be inferred that attempt to bypass or claim exceed the perimeter involves wanting to enter in the building (indoors), it can also be thought that the call only want to get to the doors or just “go around” or “encircle”. Was not found in the calls or no evidential element in any proceedings (including the copy of the affidavit) that the intention was to “penetrate” (“access” in terms of the copy of the statement) in Congress. “
10 – “It is true, on the other hand, dealing with” dangerous instruments “(cobblestones, a pot of mason, batteries, a chisel…) but we must not deduce that those dangerous instruments were to enter the Congress.”
11 – “It is concluded, therefore, that the calls origin of these proceedings do not involve commission of any crime, and thereby none of the defendants in the present case, as others initially identified as potential participants in the call, have committed no crime “.
Judge: Santiago Pedraz
Original doc: http://es.scribd.com/doc/108962981/Auto-Pedraz-25S