Why will the Supreme Court continue to not pardon Puigdemont and Junqueras?

BarcelonaThe independence movement celebrates the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to endorse the European framework for the amnesty law. News that, in theory, should accelerate its application by all courts that have so far refused it. But there is one that, for the moment, does not feel concerned. The Supreme Court will continue to not grant amnesty to Carles Puigdemont, Oriol Junqueras, and the rest of the leaders convicted of embezzlement, according to sources consulted by ARA. What room does it have to do so? For now, whatever it wants, despite Junts and ERC's legal services denouncing that it has been violating the law for months.

The president of the court that tried the 1-O, Manuel Marchena, and the rest of the magistrates of the second chamber clung to a red-hot iron to keep Puigdemont away and Junqueras out of institutions. They argued that neither one nor the other could be included in the amnesty law because, in fact, the law itself provided for their exclusion. The rule approved in Congress provides for acts of embezzlement to be amnestied, "expressly excluding those that involve personal enrichment or patrimonial benefit." So, did the members of the Government enrich themselves? No, but according to Marchena — and Pablo Llarena — since they did not put money out of their own pockets to organize the referendum, the enrichment was indirect. An argumentative twist that made a good part of the legal world throw up their hands, but which has served for two years as an excuse not to apply the amnesty to them.

The CJEU has not entered into assessing whether this decision by the Supreme Court is correct or not because, in fact, there was no request for it to do so. The Spanish high court decided not to submit any preliminary ruling to the European justice system and, therefore, on Thursday the doubts surrounding its restrictive interpretation of the amnesty have not been clarified. The CJEU has limited itself to considering the amnesty within the European legal order, but has said nothing about the specific interpretation that the Supreme Court has decided to make of it.

In the short term there will be no changes, and Puigdemont will remain in Waterloo — with an active arrest warrant in Spanish territory — and Junqueras disqualified from running in elections. And this, even though the Constitutional Court (TC) considered it appropriate — with the dissenting vote of conservative judges — to apply the amnesty to cases of embezzlement. Now it will be the TC again that specifically decides on the appeals for protection of the politically repressed. Will it leave room for the interpretation that the Supreme Court may make? The final word will once again lie with Marchena and Llarena. The final word will once again lie with Marchena and Llarena.