The defense of Driss Oukabir, one of those convicted of belonging to the cell that attacked Barcelona and Cambrils in 2017, has submitted a brief to the Appeals Chamber of the National High Court asking for clarification on how the sentences remain after the resolution of the resources notified yesterday.

“This party understands that it is necessary for the sentences to be clarified,” he affirms in the brief presented by the lawyer Luis Álvarez just a few hours after the sentence was notified.

The Appeals Chamber that has reviewed the initial ruling of the High Court has upheld the convictions for belonging to a jihadist cell and for possession of explosive substances. Doubts arise about what happens with the other crimes for which the first sentence also condemned: one of attempted havoc (10 years for Oukabir) and 29 of injuries (six months for each, 14 and a half years in total ).

As reported by the Court, the Appeals Chamber replaced the 14 and a half years of the injuries with a joint sentence of four years for reckless damage and injuries.

The interpretation made by the lawyer Luis Álvarez is that this new four-year sentence replaces not only injuries, but also attempted havoc, whose sentence “is assumed” by reckless havoc. Otherwise, there would be two convictions for havoc in the new sentence. This is a “dark” aspect of the sentence that the lawyer asks to be clarified.

Sources from the Court ratified on Wednesday that the 10 years for attempted havoc are maintained, so the reduction for Oukabir would be 10 and a half years and not 22 and a half. This penalty for attempted damage would correspond to the cell’s plans to attack with a van bomb. The commission of that crime began -hence the attempt-, but it was frustrated when the explosives exploded in the Alcanar house where they were preparing. This explosion would correspond to the new sentence of four years for reckless havoc imposed by the Court of Appeal.

Other sources of the Court interpret that the conviction for the attempted havoc is not upheld, adding that the legal framework of what happened is very complex and that the Supreme Court will end up having to resolve it in the appeals that will surely be presented.

The Appeals Chamber must now respond to the clarifications requested by the defense. The court that tried the case already had to do it, which issued a clarification order for having forgotten the mention of the crime of havoc in the verdict of the sentence.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria