[ErneX]

"Spain" did not put anybody in jail, it was the judges and there was a public trial, according to the rule of law, some politicians commited crimes are were judged accordingly, the way you phrase it makes it seem arbitrary when it was not.

[JaumeGreen]

Judges selected by the Spanish government.

If the trial was fair, why is the majority of the sentence an explanation about how fair they were? One doesn't need to explain how clean they are, they just need to be clean.

Why were policemen allowed to explain their fears, but not the defense witnesses?

Why were only some of the defense witnesses warned that omitting the truth would be considered perjury but no single accusation witness was? The Spanish politicians were really withholding a lot.

The minister in charge of taxes said, on the trial, that there wasn't an euro unaccounted for. So where is the mishandling of money? The law was stretched thin on this.

[yiyus]

Look, I am not a layer. I have zero experience about how to redact a sentence or how many witnesses should speak in court. And I am really surprised of how many experts you can find in Catalonia.

But all these expert seem to ignore that these people can appeal their sentences if they don't agree with them. Spain, at difference of authoritarian countries, is subjected to international law. Do you accept these international courts or are they fascists too? Because if the whole world think that what these politicians did was wrong maybe, just maybe, you should consider that there is a possibility that what they did was wrong.

The Spanish government has made many mistakes, and I am very sure they will make many more, no matter who wins the elections. But the Generalitat cannot just take the law into their hands. Everybody knew it would have legal consequences. Most of them can be out early next year. Do you think this an injustice that deserve rioting and burning your city? That is what I would call an stretch.

[JaumeGreen]

The whole world is not thinking that what our politicians did, if they did anything, was illegal. There have been plenty of interventions about the sentence, most of the ones I've heard about are against it.

How justice works is to usually make the initial judgement on a low court and the recourses go to higher ones. Not on this, it was directly judged on the higher one and no recourse can be made about the judgement, only about how it was reached.

This ruling is not something that "deserves" rioting, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

[yiyus]

> There have been plenty of interventions about the sentence, most of the ones I've heard about are against it.

I am talking about official positions, not "interventions". Please, show me all those countries that have condemned Spain for its fascist non-democratic practices.

And, I repeat than I am not a layer, but as far as I understand this sentence can still be appealed in international courts.

[JaumeGreen]

Why are you moving the goal? That's not a nice tactic. I've not expressed the Spanish practices as non-democratic or fascist, so I should not have to show an international condemnation for them in these words.

In a shallow search I've found this, from just before the trial [0] Iceland, and Scotland, ask for democratic solution. Couple of quotes: "The Icelandic Government has called upon their Spanish counterparts to look for a negotiated solution, emphasising the need to respect human rights.", "Scottish minister reiterates support for “the people of Catalonia to determine their own future”". February 15th 2019.

I've heard interventions on the EU parliament to talk about the issues, but it was voted against.

On the other hand I've seen no country saying that Spain is doing great with their police. Almost the opposite, with China saying that Hong Kong police are better than Spanish police and the press is the other way around [1].

Then, again, the appeal to the sentence to international courts will do nothing. The appeal, even if it prospered, it would do nothing against the ruling, at most it would ask a revision of the trial [2]. And that's from a pro-independence source, so you can imagine what others might say.

[0] https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/13862/iceland-becomes-... [1] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1168214.shtml [2] https://www.naciodigital.cat/noticia/189638/exvicepresident/...

[yiyus]

Ok, my apologies. Let's be specific then. Show me please some international authority saying that the sentence was wrong, or that they did the right thing disobeying court orders or with that "declaration of independence" (what the hell was that more than a provocation that they knew could get them in jail?). But, please, do not show me people saying that they want a democratic solution, that they are against police brutality (who isn't?) or that they support the goal for self-determination. That would be changing the goal, it's not a nice tactic.

You show the case of Iceland. They have "expressed concern". That's fine. I'm concerned too. And Scotland asks for a "democratic solution". A democratic solution cannot include breaking the law or ignoring court orders from a democratic country. I think both sides are guilty of not finding a democratic solution, don't you agree? Don't you think that these people refused the democratic solution the moment they decided to ignore the law? And, if you really think Spanish police is worse than the Chinese one, well... you should go there and check by yourself, I sincerely don't know what to say about such statement.

But let's forget for a second about the other comments and, please, answer me one question: what do you want? What should happen now to make you happy (or at least to stop spreading FUD about our country)? Should the government go against the court rule ignoring separation of powers? Should they allow the kids to burn Barcelona? What exactly do you want?