The National Court applies the amnesty to the twelve CDR of operation Judas

MadridThe list of people pending amnesty continues to shrink at a trickle. The latest to take the step was the National Court, which had been dragging its feet for three months to avoid applying the law to the twelve CDR members of Operation Judas accused of terrorism. After the approval of the regulation, the court decided to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) if amnestying the CDR members clashed with European law. It was a way to boycott and delay the application of the amnesty. The Luxembourg ruling took two years to arrive, but it was issued in July, fully endorsing the law. Since then, the National Court had a clear path to make a move, but it has needed three more months to make the pardon effective. It has buried the case 28 months after the law came into force. “It must be understood that the facts that are the subject of this proceeding must be included,” concludes the four-page interlocutory order.

The resolution alludes to the literal wording of the amnesty, which fits into the perimeter of the law those cases investigated for terrorism that do not involve “serious intentional violations of human rights.” It also refers to the CJEU ruling, which established that this does not compromise legal certainty, equal treatment, or non-discrimination.

“The victory belongs to all of you who have fought and remain firm in the struggle,” celebrated shortly after Alerta Solidària, which defended the twelve CDR members. Carles Puigdemont, who continues to wait for Pablo Llarena to conclude the summary before Manuel Marchena can definitively amnesty him, celebrated a “great piece of news” regarding a case that was “so sensitive and so malicious,” but he lamented that the decision comes after “unjust suffering,” an “obscene media lynching,” and a “flagrant violation of fundamental rights.”

As ARA has learned, the popular prosecutors—comprised of Vox, the Association of Victims of Terrorism, the Dignity and Justice Association, and two Civil Guard associations—will file an appeal against the decision. They have ten days to do so and could subsequently still go to the Supreme Court to overturn the amnesty. In the latest brief they submitted to prevent it, which this newspaper also had access to, they accused the CJEU of having issued the ruling for “reasons of political convenience” following “pressure” from Spain and argued that the expression “serious human rights violations” is “implicit” in cases of terrorism: “Is it legally admissible to grant amnesty when there has been an attempt to commit an attack in the name of a political ideology?”, they asked.