The Court of Justice of the European Union has just ruled that the amnesty law is not contrary to European law. It is an extremely significant decision. It dismantles the arguments of those who presented it as an attack on the rule of law and, above all, it highlights the sectarianism of right-wing judges and politicians who, not satisfied with opposing the amnesty, presented it as a legal absurdity unworthy of a democratic country. Ultimately, the Luxembourg court returns the discussion to its rightful terms: like many other political measures, one can agree or disagree with not ceasing to judicially prosecute the Procés.

The intensity of the political earthquake caused in the ranks of the left by Zapatero's indictment is pending a whole series of legal questions. Amidst the avalanche of information, a large part of the public can barely get an idea of what is happening or form a judgment on the former president's integrity. For now, we know the summary and the indictment order. That is, all investigations carried out so far and the conclusions the judge draws from them. He is accused of two crimes: influence peddling and money laundering. The relevant one is the first because money laundering is only a crime if it comes from a prior illicit activity.

There are fraudulent rulings and rulings that are inherently fraudulent. The Supreme Court's ruling that convicts the Attorney General falls into the latter category. This court, boasting of its extensive expertise and the high legal caliber of some of its members, has drafted a decision that appears technically sound, but which falters when it addresses the core issue it is meant to resolve.