The amnesty law for those prosecuted and convicted by the process is now in force after its publication in the BOE. The rule now enters the complex scenario of its application by the judges who, as a preliminary step, have begun to ask the parties to rule on its impact in each case. This movement has already had replicas in the Prosecutor’s Office, where the attorney general, Álvaro García Ortiz, demanded that the prosecutors who participated in the procés trial prepare a procedural report without “political considerations” about the law, according to sources. consulted.
The request occurred within the framework of a meeting held with prosecutors Javier Zaragoza and Jaime Moreno, in charge of promoting the public accusation in the two major cases opened in the Supreme Court: that relating to those already convicted and that of those who have escaped, such as former president Carles Puigdemont. The meeting took place after the High Court gave the parties five days to take a position on the application of the law.
The attorney general’s demand came after both told him that they had already prepared a report on the application of the amnesty. In that document, released just a few minutes after the norm was approved in Congress and when it had not yet come into force, they were against applying the amnesty law for the crime of embezzlement. And they included considerations that went beyond the legal field, with allusions to the supposed “broad majority” popular rejection of the law or the “abrupt and unexpected change of opinion” of the PSOE in relation to this matter, among others. Hence, the attorney general has demanded a new “procedural report”, not “generic” as that one was, and that answers only to what the Supreme Court demands, say the same sources.
In that text, the procés prosecutors also left in writing their thesis that the diversion of funds for the holding of the 1-O referendum does not fall within the exclusions provided for in the law, which contemplates that crimes of embezzlement will be amnestied “always that there has been no purpose of enrichment.” Thus, they argued that Puigdemont, Junqueras and the rest of those convicted or prosecuted for this crime were “personally” enriched by giving public money to third parties to pay for this consultation.
The sources consulted insist that García Ortiz has not given these prosecutors “any indication” about the new report. So far, the attorney general has refused to comment on the amnesty because, in his opinion, it would mean “interfering” in the Legislative Branch. But those around him affirm that, in principle, his position is that the independence leaders did not enrich themselves personally, so this behavior would be protected by the norm.
This probable disparity in criteria anticipates a possible conflict in the Prosecutor’s Office that could lead the process prosecutors to activate article 27 of the Organic Statute of the Prosecutor’s Office. This article provides for the meeting of the Board of Court Prosecutors when an inferior disagrees with the decision of a superior. The possibility of invoking this procedure was raised at the meeting, according to the legal sources consulted. However, the vote is not binding on the boss, who can maintain his discretion. And, in any case, the last word on the application or the amnesty will be the judges’.
Add Comment