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

BarcelonaThe pro-independence movement celebrates the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to endorse the European compatibility of 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 addressed. 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, anything it wants, even though the legal services of Junts and ERC denounce 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 of them could be included in the amnesty law because, in fact, the law itself provided for their exclusion. The rule approved in Congress provides for the amnesty of acts of embezzlement "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 use their own money to organize the referendum, the enrichment was indirect. A logical somersault that made a good part of the legal world put their hands to their heads, but it has served for two years as an excuse not to apply amnesty to them.

The CJEU has not assessed 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 and, therefore, on Thursday the doubts surrounding its restrictive interpretation of the amnesty were not 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 and Junqueras ineligible to stand for elections. And this, even though the Constitutional Court (TC) itself considered it appropriate —with the dissenting vote of conservative judges— for amnesty to be applied to cases of embezzlement. Now it will be the TC again who will decide specifically on the appeals for protection of political victims. Will this leave room for interpretation by the Supreme Court? Marchena and Llarena will have the last word again.