BPA Defence Lawyers File Recusal Motions Against Key Appeal Judges

Two defence lawyers in the BPA case have filed formal recusal motions against Superior Court penal chamber judges Yves Picod and Fátima Ramírez, arguing their past involvement in related proceedings undermines impartiality and could delay appeals against the first-instance convictions.

The motions, submitted in recent days and notified to all parties including prosecutors and government representatives on Friday, target the judges' roles in prior rulings. Jesús Jiménez, representing Joan Pau Miquel—sentenced to seven years in prison—cites the chamber's rejection of his client's pre-trial liberty requests. Those appeals hinged on a key defence claim: no underlying crime existed, as the alleged money laundering arose from a tax offence. Jiménez argues the chamber reviewed prosecution and defence positions on this substantive issue, siding with authorities before the Constitutional Court ordered Miquel's release. His filing also references a 2016 tribunal including Picod and Ramírez that dismissed Miquel's protection claim, and a 2018 panel rejecting challenges to the Corts trial judges. He calls for the judges to step aside or for a new panel free of any case involvement, given the proceedings' prominence.

Antoni Riestra, counsel for Santiago de Rosselló (six-year sentence) and Joan Cejudo and Ana Maria Bermejo (conditional sentences), lists six instances of the judges' engagement with core evidence and issues, raising doubts about their neutrality. Defences contend the judges lack the "mental virginity" required by international—particularly European—jurisprudence, despite Andorran law allowing prior handling of incidental matters, precautionary measures or procedural safeguards that do not touch the merits.