Mariano Bergés: “The Supreme Court should not delay in applying the amnesty, even more so when the order is so explicit and clear”

MadridMariano Bergés is the lawyer for Dolors Bassa. He defended the former Minister of Labor, Social Affairs and Families during the trial of the Procés and almost two years ago he filed an appeal for protection (recurs d'empara) to the Constitutional Court against Manuel Marchena's refusal to apply the amnesty law to her. The ruling has paved the way for the rest of the 1-O government: it will allow the return of Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig to Catalonia and will put an end to the disqualifications of Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull and Raül Romeva. The appeal argued that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the amnesty “frontally attacks” the “spirit and purpose” of the norm and “dangerously delves” into the legislative function with a maneuver that “entails the practical repeal” of the law.

How do you assess the Constitutional Court's ruling?

— My assessment is good because it upholds the amparo appeal and accepts our arguments, which are that the Supreme Court did not apply the amnesty law when it should have done so with an extensive and contra reum interpretation, with conclusions that were contradictory to the meaning of the amnesty law.

In fact, the ruling shares the bulk of its argumentation and even adopts some of the terms that you were using.

— The amnesty did not need an interpretation; the literal tenor of the law was crystal clear, it was a case that fit perfectly into the amnesty.

Coincidence has meant that Dolors Bassa's appeal ended up being the first to be resolved.

— I am very happy for her. I believe that at times she has been a bit invisibilized and I think this has been an opportunity to make her more visible and that it also serves as recognition for everything she has done and suffered.

How did she receive the news?

— She has received it very well. Satisfied, but cautious. Because now the next step must be taken, which is the execution of the order given by the Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court, which is ultimately the one that must grant her amnesty. She is waiting to see how it resolves it, even though the Constitutional Court is very clear and explicit and leaves no room for maneuver.

The conservative magistrates consider that this direct and explicit order causes an “absolutely unjustified and unnecessary institutional collision”. Do you consider it was necessary?

— It does not seem like an exorbitant order to me. It seems logical, pertinent, and adjusted to the law. What the Constitutional Court is telling it is to annul the two resolutions because they violate the fundamental rights of Dolors Bassa, to backtrack the procedure, and to apply the amnesty law. The preferential and urgent processing is not something that the Constitutional Court invented; it is something that the amnesty law itself provides for.

Now the ball is in the Supreme Court's court. When do you predict it could definitively archive the case?

— I believe that the Supreme Court should not delay much longer, and even less so when the order is so explicit and so clear. I do not find legal reasons for which the Supreme Court should postpone this resolution that the Constitutional Court orders it to.

Do you think that calling the elections for November 29th could accelerate the ruling, considering that those convicted in the 'Procés' trial are disqualified?

— Well, that is as much as saying whether a political issue is influencing the processing of a judicial procedure, but that assessment does not fall to me. From a legal point of view, the calling of elections does not have to influence either the decision or the time to issue the resolution.

Will you formally ask the Supreme Court to apply the ruling?

— The Supreme Court does not need me to tell it to apply the amnesty because the Constitutional Court is already telling it to. It remains to be seen whether it takes long or not. I will let the days pass to see how the Supreme Court responds. If it were to take a long time, there is the possibility of filing an enforcement incident before the Constitutional Court, but I hope it will not be necessary.

After the ruling, do you have the feeling of having won, in a way, the battle against the Supreme Court?

— From a professional point of view, I do not experience it as a battle; I have experienced it as a professional satisfaction in the sense that I have legally fought against arguments given by the Supreme Court that I did not share and that seemed to me not adjusted to law and that violated fundamental rights.

In a few days, it will be seven years since the ruling on the 'Procés'. Is this chapter of the judicialization of Dolors Bassa's role on October 1st now closing for good?

— Dolors Bassa has gone through quite an ordeal. She had to face a request for 76 years of imprisonment by Vox and thirty years by the Prosecutor's Office. She spent approximately three and a half years in prison. The pardon granted to her was partial and did not prevent her from remaining disqualified until 2031. And with what seemed to be the end of the chapter, which was the amnesty law, it turns out that the Supreme Court makes this interpretation that leads to its practical repeal.

The conservatives believe that the ruling "has usurped the work" of the Supreme Court. Do you believe that the Constitutional Court has fulfilled its role?

— It seems to me that it argues very well. It is talking about a violation of fundamental rights. Everything revolves around this violation because the Supreme Court's resolution is based on unreasonable concepts and definitions. It does not seem to me that the Constitutional Court is entering into the territory of the Supreme Court or the ordinary jurisdiction.