Why is the commission on the Rambla attacks stuck?
The parties have agreed to try again in September after several postponements of the meeting to approve them
MadridThe resumption of parliamentary activity in Congress, in September, will have as one of its pending tasks to unblock the approval of the conclusions on the attacks of August 17 in Barcelona and Cambrils. Two and a half years after the investigation commission on 17-A was established, parliamentary groups have already drafted their final proposals, but have not yet submitted them for a vote. The differences between the parties of the plurinational majority, which have been noted in the registered documents and during the sessions, have led them to negotiate in an attempt to approve a consensual text. For now, according to various parliamentary sources consulted by ARA, there is no definitive agreement, although the parties have agreed to try again after the holidays. The main obstacle is for PSOE and Junts to agree, as they are the ones with the most opposing positions.
In July, the commission's meeting to approve the conclusions, which will then have to be taken to the full session of the lower house, was canceled twice. The reason, the same sources explain, was precisely the lack of agreement between socialists and Junts. Given the fear that an alternative text with the votes of PP and Vox could be approved, the presidency of the commission, held by Sumar, opted to suspend the calls for sessions that coincided with the extraordinary plenary sessions of July 14 and 23. Are there options for a new call in September to succeed? Junts approaches it with optimism after having been given more time to evaluate the content of a possible pact. Other members of the plurinational majority, who are also negotiating, see options for a definitive understanding to be reached.
Sources aware of the negotiation explain that, while a few months ago it seemed impossible for PSOE and Junts to agree, for now there are already advances on core issues. The parties, they add, have shown good predisposition to reach an agreement in September after failing to do so in July. Being under the scrutiny of the victims' families is also a great motivator to get their act together in order to approve conclusions, they point out.
Differences over 17-A
In case of agreement, it will be necessary to see how they manage to structure the narrative about 17-A, which differs substantially between the PSOE and the pro-independence parties. Both Junts and ERC, with nuances between them, have pointed to the State's role, unlike the Socialists. In its conclusions, Junts holds the State responsible because, in its opinion, the relationship between Imam Abdelbaki es-Satty and the CNI is "accredited." According to the party, the attacks took place due to "negligence of the secret services," which concealed the ties for a "political decision.
Although the Republicans also speak of "negligence," they do not go as far and point to an "error in prevention" and in the transmission of information to the Mossos d'Esquadra. While the PSOE's conclusions do not fall within this framework, they do admit that the Ministry of the Interior has had to make "substantial improvements in coordination between the different police forces" and that it is necessary to "continue moving forward and guaranteeing" that all police forces have real-time access to information. A recognition that, for some of the sources consulted, may be one of the cracks for positions to move closer.
The pro-independence parties, and also Sumar, have focused on the need to declassify all information from 17-A, which is another aspect in which they have clashed with the PSOE. "The right to know the truth continues to be not fully satisfied," states ERC. In the case of Junts, which questions the death of Es-Satty, it calls for reforming the law of official secrets to prevent the classification of documents that could hinder the investigation of possible responsibilities in cases of terrorism. Beyond having access to this "truth," another of the points that the conclusions will have to resolve is that of the institutional response that the victims have had after the attacks and the call for improvements so that they have comprehensive reparation.
