The Prosecutor of the National Court will request the Criminal Chamber to issue a car rectification in which he agrees to a bail of 10,000 euros for Alexis Codina, one of the members of the Defense Committees of the Republic (CDR) investigated for terrorism, since he attributes in his car a support for probation which, in fact, It did not occur, as legal sources have reported.
In the factual record of the order of the Second Section, whose rapporteur is Judge José Ricardo de Prada, he states that the Prosecutor presented a report requesting confirmation of the preventive detention of Codina, but that "would not oppose the setting of a bond of 9,000 euros to avoid the precautionary measure "," since the researcher did not participate materially in the manufacture and possession of the explosive ".
However, the Prosecutor's report denies this point, since in the case of Codina, and unlike other four CDRs investigated for terrorism for whom bail has already been agreed, it continued defending the continuity of the unconditional prison measure and did not raise at any time the possibility of agreeing a bond.
'Producer nucleus' versus 'executor nucleus'
The distinction between Alexis Codina and the other four investigated to whom bail has been imposed (Eduard Garzón, Ferrán Jolis, Xavier Buigas and Guillem Xavier Duch) is that the first would have been part of the 'producer nucleus' of the explosives within the Tactical Response Team (ERT), the group to which they allegedly belonged, while the latter would have integrated the 'executing nucleus' and would not have handled the explosive precursor materials.
Specifically, prosecutor Miguel Ángel Carballo argued in his writing that Codina's address "served as clandestine laboratory for the terrorist cell in the preparation, preparation and practice of various explosive compounds ", as well as" storage and storage for third parties of the different hazardous substances ".
In the manufacturing process, the report added, "Alexis Codina was actively involved, not only by providing space to prepare and store it, but also by being the first person to obtain some essential elements such as iron oxide".
During home registration, investigators found "a small workshop where they found the technical means that Alexis Codina used for the preparation of explosive and incendiary substances, as well as on the shelves and countertops the substances necessary for its elaboration, "added the prosecutor.
For all these reasons, the Public Ministry is clear that Alexis Codina was part of the 'producer nucleus' of the ERT, but also "participated in the location of the objectives to carry out violent actions against critical installations such as electric towers, electricity producing facilities, solar panels, etc ".
Still seeing risk of leakage and destruction of evidence
For the prosecutor, Codina's detention and home registration does not avoid the risk of leakage and destruction of evidence and the "rooting elements" manifested by their defense "lack a relevant entity" to agree on other measures less burdensome than pretrial detention. Similarly, he does not see the argument of his state of health as something incompatible with being in prison.
Despite this report, in the order of this Thursday, the Second Section of the Criminal Chamber has slipped an "error" and what has been reflected is the position of the Prosecutor's Office regarding Duch, Buigas, Garzón and Jolis , but not in relation to Codina, which is why the Public Ministry will request a correction so that the car correctly records its opinion.
The court comprising José Ricardo De Prada, Fernando Andreu and María Fernanda García Pérez has decided to impose on Codina a deposit of 10,000 euros (The other four investigated have had to pay 5,000), claiming that the substances found in their home were not explosive in themselves, but precursors.