Gonzalo Boye: "If the People's Party were in power, it would make it easier to resolve the case of the pro-independence leaders."

BarcelonaFormer President Carles Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, speaks to ARA one year after the passage of the amnesty law, in which he played a key role.

It's been a year since the amnesty was passed in Congress. What's your assessment?

— It's necessary to take stock of two aspects. On the one hand, there is a very significant number of people who have benefited from the amnesty law. If I'm not mistaken, I'd say around 180 pro-independence activists or more. And on the other hand, there is an issue of obvious concern: the prisoners in the Proceso trial and the exiles, to whom the highest courts are refusing to apply a law that is currently in force.

How is this resolved?

— There are several paths. One is the issue of preliminary rulings before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Another is the Constitutional Court. But the solution basically comes from making them understand once and for all that the application of the law is not a matter of discretion, but rather that it is necessary to apply all the laws in force.

When did you detect that the PSOE was willing to push such a law through Congress?

— The president [Carles Puigdemont] informs me that this will be one of the conditions sine qua non to support the investiture and, therefore, I get to work.

And how did that negotiation with the PSOE representatives go?

— Typically, any negotiation is complex, and this one even more so because there were many people with different interests. We looked after the interests of people with open criminal cases. It was a tense negotiation, generally at a highly technical level, and in the end, our criteria prevailed.

He says there were people with interests different from his own.

— The law on the table in Congress at the end of January was unacceptable because it was riddled with loopholes. We forced them to plug them, provide them with technical support, and, above all, ensured that the law had a clear objective: to decriminalize politics, compensate victims, and lay the groundwork for future political negotiations. But what we couldn't do was draft any law that left people out.

Are you talking about the PSOE or the Left?

— I'm talking about everyone. Because we were alone. Those weren't pleasant times for me personally or professionally. I even remember that some front pages were dedicated to me with personal attacks, the result of holding a specific position that, in the long run, has proven to be the correct one.

But the Supreme Court doesn't apply the rule to the issue of embezzlement either. Looking back, would it have written the law differently?

— No, the problem isn't the law. Let's not be confused. In fact, if we had approved it as it was in January [when Juntos opposed it], the problem would be the law. Now the problem is those who don't want to apply it.

What reform do you think is essential to introduce so that the problem now isn't the law?

— First, the conduct eligible for amnesty was defined, and then it was drafted in a way that was compatible with EU law, because we were aware that this was going to reach the CJEU. In fact, there are currently four preliminary rulings, three of which specifically address embezzlement. So, we were right; it's now absolutely clear that this is a law that neither permits nor protects corruption; it's a law designed for Europe.

Do you think the PP would have passed this law in another context if it needed the votes of Junts or other pro-independence parties?

— Well, I've seen PP leaders say they speak Catalan in private. I'd like politics to be a matter of principles, but in the end, it's a matter of interests.

So, do you think the PP would also pass an amnesty law if it had interests in this regard at a given time?

— If he had not applied an amnesty law, he would at least have applied a de facto amnesty.

What does it mean?

— The way it was brought to court, all of this could have also been dejudicialized. Clearly, the PSOE didn't have that capacity, and what it should have done was issue an amnesty law. The healthy thing for a country is to have an amnesty law that recognizes a conflict. But it wasn't the only solution available.

In other words, do you think that if the PP were in power, it would effectively resolve the case of President Puigdemont and the rest of the pro-independence leaders who have not yet been amnestied?

— I think the position would be completely different and would make it easier to resolve the case of the independence leaders who have not yet been amnestied.

Why does the PP have a much more direct influence on the judiciary?

— With the PP, there would be less conflict within the judiciary, rather than a question of influence. Sometimes we think judges aren't independent, and I've always maintained that the problem is that they aren't impartial, because they have a very established view of what they believe is right and how Spain should function.

In June, the Constitutional Court is expected to rule on the appeal filed by the People's Party (PP) against the amnesty. What is your forecast?

— At the media and political level, a series of ideas have been created that later fail to correspond to reality. What exists at this time is a series of appeals of unconstitutionality filed by the People's Party (PP) and several autonomous communities, which were the only ones with this possibility. The Constitutional Court must now decide whether the law is constitutional or not. And that is the only thing it will decide. Once this is resolved, it must respond to questions of unconstitutionality raised by some courts. And, thirdly, the Constitutional Court must rule on the appeals for constitutional protection from the various convicted defendants in the Trial who have had to appeal against the Supreme Court's failure to apply the law.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court's ruling in June does not open any concrete window of opportunity for President Puigdemont's return.

— We are still awaiting a motion for annulment regarding the non-application of the amnesty because, in addition, in the case of President Puigdemont, another circumstance has arisen: Judge Llarena, with the support of the Supreme Court, has declared that he has jurisdiction to judge a member of the Catalan Parliament. Despite having previously stated otherwise, they have recused themselves from the cases of members of the Catalan Parliament who have jurisdiction in the High Court of Justice. So, we basically have to go and argue that he is not the judge pre-established by law to resolve this issue.

Are you focused on taking the case out of the Supreme Court and taking it to the TSJC because you think you'll have a better chance of being pardoned?

— I'm focused on ensuring that the Supreme Court doesn't colonize jurisdictional spheres that don't correspond to it and that it allows the competent courts to act with confidence, independence, and impartiality in each case. Sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will have to admit that it's breaking the law. In the coming months, we could find ourselves facing a bankruptcy scenario because its debts are piling up: right now, the case is pending before the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, and we've forgotten that all those convicted in the Trial have their appeals admitted for processing before Strasbourg. Everyone may say they haven't applied the law correctly.

Do you think Strasbourg will make a decision before the Constitutional Court?

— At any time, because the legal procedures have already been exhausted.

And would a favorable stance from Strasbourg toward former political prisoners be a plus in the Puigdemont case?

— If Strasbourg condemns Spain in the Trial, the entire proceedings would be null and void. Therefore, the Supreme Court would find itself in the position of having a case that failed the first European filter.

But it depends on the content of the Strasbourg ruling and which rights the court considers violated. This annulment may not always be on the table.

— Yes, but all appeals stem from the right to a judge pre-established by law, to an impartial judge [...], that is, I believe Strasbourg will act in that way.

In the appeal you will also file with the Constitutional Court over the non-application of the amnesty to Puigdemont, what rights will you assert?

— I'll simply claim that the right to a judge, as established by law, has been violated. We can't discuss anything beyond that if the person who made this decision didn't have legal grounds to issue it. It's as if it had been issued by you, or me, or by the neighbor on the fifth floor.

Were you aware of President Puigdemont's brief return on August 8?

— I can't answer this question because I have clients who are charged in a case regarding this issue.

These clients won't be covered by the amnesty because they won't be eligible for the current temporary period. What's your outlook on these cases?

— I still don't know what crime they committed because the Penal Code is very clear: it states that it involves assisting a prisoner, detainee, or convicted person to escape; and President Puigdemont was neither imprisoned, detained, nor convicted. Therefore, it is criminally irrelevant conduct. The case should be dismissed.

Is it possible to reform the amnesty law, for example, to include these cases or to reword it so the Supreme Court can apply it?

— A legislative effort to reform amnesty seems like a waste of time to me, and perhaps what should be done is a much more in-depth reform for situations like the ones we're experiencing now.

You have also had to face a trial [for the Sito Miñanco case]: do you think the sentence will be fair?

— The trial went well, and now the verdict is pending. For years, I've been vilified and insulted, and I've been accused of conduct that proved untrue during the trial. I'm hopeful the sentence will be fair. I'm not nervous or worried; I think the court understood that there was a setup, as we see it being done and is being done.

One of the things that was raised, or at least made public, was that his case would also be part of the amnesty. You...

— It was an insidious act in the campaign to destabilize Junts in the amnesty negotiations. That's not a question for me. That negotiation didn't take place. Show me a document in which it appears.

Do you think they wanted to keep you out of the negotiations?

— Those who wanted this to be a military walkover have tried to keep me out of the negotiations from the very beginning.

What timeline would you set for President Puigdemont's return?

— It's a question for President Puigdemont.