The Constitutional Court approves the amnesty: all the key points of the ruling

MadridJust over a year after its approval in Congress, the Constitutional Court has endorsed the amnesty law in the process. The bargaining chip that made Pedro Sánchez's investiture possible with the seven votes of Junts has received the approval of an organization that the right has been busy discrediting to the maximum in recent months, especially its president, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, labeled almost as a political commissar of Moncloa in the Constitutional Court. The approval of the ruling by 6 votes to 4, thanks to the progressive majority before the conservative judges, reinforces this questioning. Be that as it may, the Constitutional Court dismisses virtually all of the PP's appeal against the amnesty.

It is not a general pardon.

The law is legal because it is not prohibited by the Constitution

One of the pillars of this week's debate in the Constitutional Court has been the general fit of amnesties into the Constitution, and of that provision in particular. At an abstract level, the plenary has already decided that, as The Magna Carta does not prohibit them, amnesties are possible. "Everything that is not constitutionally prohibited remains, in principle, within the scope of the legislator's decision," concludes the ruling, to which ARA has had access. More specifically, the judges differentiate amnesty from general pardons, which are prohibited by the Constitution. "While pardons are a prerogative of the executive branch regarding individual convictions, amnesty can only be granted in the Spanish Parliament, is general in nature, and implies retroactive exemption from the application of punitive norms," states the Constitutional Court.

A constitutional crisis for Article 155

Amnesty is not only valid in a transition process, but it must be exceptional.

One of the new features of the ruling that was not included in Montalbán's report is to reinforce its exceptional nature, justified by a "constitutional crisis" that occurred during the trial, as ARA explained yesterday"It represented an unprecedented challenge to the constitutional order, the unity of the State, and national sovereignty, as well as a profound fracture of democratic coexistence, giving rise to the opening of criminal and sanctioning proceedings to demand accountability from those who committed the illegal acts." TC sources consulted by ARA emphasize that one of the arguments reinforcing this exceptionality is that Article 155 had to be applied in Catalonia, something unprecedented, and that in 2015 the organic law of the TC was modified to give it the power to enforce its resolutions.

It is not a self-amnesty

The reason for seeking democratic coexistence is justifiable

The ruling considers that the law responds to a "legitimate, explicit, and reasonable" purpose, thus endorsing its motivation of "reducing the institutional and political tension generated by the events of the Process" and of "facilitating a scenario of reconciliation." In this sense, they do not consider it to be a self-amnesty by Pedro Sánchez: "A law debated and approved by the Parliament of a democratic state governed by the rule of law that provides for the extinction of criminal liability through amnesty cannot be classified as a self-amnesty, typical of authoritarian systems or states in transition, dictated by those who benefit from the immunity of its authors for preventing the investigation and prosecution of conduct constituting the most serious crimes against human rights."

Amnestying Terrorism

The ruling says that it is not contrary to European law

Another new feature in the report is that it refers to the possibility of amnesty for terrorist offenses. The National Court has specifically submitted a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of the CDRs prosecuted for terrorism, but the Constitutional Court has already announced that it does not consider it contrary to European law. The ruling also maintains that the fact that the amnesty requires the lifting of current European arrest warrants does not violate European regulations on this matter. Regarding the relationship with Community bodies, on Monday It was already deliberated and voted that the TC could issue a ruling without having to wait or first go to the Luxembourg court..

Embezzlement is not addressed

The PP did not mention this in its appeal.

The ruling does not address whether the law is applicable to embezzlement cases, that is, to Carles Puigdemont and those convicted in the Supreme Court for the October 1st referendum. The People's Party (PP) avoided including this in its appeal, leaving no room for the Constitutional Court judges to weigh in. This means that Pablo Llarena retains the power to decide how the law applies to the exiled former president.

Three aspects annulled

Those opposed to the Process should also be amnestied.

The ruling annuls three aspects that the Vice President of the Constitutional Court, Inmaculada Montalbán, had already proposed in the report she submitted for deliberation. Article 1.1 is declared unconstitutional by omission for not including as eligible acts "those acts aimed at rejecting the Process." However, due to the "political and social context," it accepts the difference in treatment for identical offenses: that is, that throwing a stone at an independence protest and not at a protest over an eviction is eligible for amnesty. It also determines that only acts that occurred before the law's approval are eligible for amnesty, given that the wording of the law left this timeframe unclear. Finally, it also annuls a section that excluded popular accusations from the Court of Auditors' right to intervene in the amnesty application process.

Who participated the most in the deliberations?

Ramón Sáez, Laura Díez and Ricardo Enríquez, the most proactive

TC sources explain to ARA that over the course of these three days of deliberations, three judges have been particularly proactive in their interventions. On the progressive side, these were Ramón Sáez and Laura Díez, who insisted on introducing amendments to the ruling regarding terrorism and the constitutional crisis of the Process, which justifies the exceptional nature of the law. On the conservative side, Ricardo Enríquez participated in the debate much more than the other three right-wing judges, Enrique Arnaldo, Concepción Espejel, and César Tolosa. Enríquez, in fact, has already announced that he will issue a separate opinion.

For his part, Conde-Pumpido did not propose any new legal proposals during the deliberations, according to court sources. The president decided how the committee of lawyers who would draft Inmaculada Montalbán's report would be formed, so anything she wanted to add to the text she could have done so before the report was distributed among the judges.