The Venice Commission says that the amnesty does not go against the separation of powers but insists on its criticism

The amnesty law does not go against the separation of powers, although its processing could be improved and raises doubts in the academic world regarding the constitutionality and the inclusion of some crimes, such as terrorism and embezzlement. It is more or less the summary of the time of the vice-president of the Venice Commission in the Council of Europe, Marta Cartabia, through the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Chamber, where the right insisted on holding a debate on the future amnesty law in Spain.

“Once the international norms and comparative law have been reviewed, taking into account 54 states of the international community, it is clear that amnesties of this type do not go against the separation of powers,” Cartabia stated in his turn to reply to the MEPs. . Both PP and Ciudadanos had denounced that this is a “law of impunity” that, in their opinion, prevents judges from deciding on judicial processes. “The Judiciary must decide whether the specified persons can meet the requirements to be applied,” social democratic parliamentarian Birgit Sippel reminded them.

Now, the representative of the Venice Commission has warned that the application of the amnesty must comply with a series of standards that she has called into question in the case of the Spanish norm, as did the report prepared by the institution at the request of the Senate, where the PP has an absolute majority. Thus, she has considered the application framework “broad and not very diffuse.” “It does not stipulate which crimes are covered by the amnesty but rather any act considered a criminal offense that was aimed at promoting secession or independence,” Cartabia said: “They are quite open clauses that detract from clarity and precision. That is why the Venice Commission recommends limiting and better defining the scope of the amnesty.”

He has also questioned the application period and has expressed “concern” about the two-month extension during parliamentary processing through amendments: “The Venice Commission remembers that an amnesty is an impersonal measure, it is not personal. That is why the criteria should not be applied to a person.” Cartabia has mentioned the inclusion of the crimes of embezzlement and terrorism in the scope of application of the amnesty. “Our guiding principle should be that it only complies with international law if the violation of human rights is excluded,” he said. That is precisely the definition that the socialists included in the draft. Regarding the embezzlement of funds, he has said that “it only has to be applied to events linked to the consultations” of November 9, 2014 and October 1, 2017.

Once again he has insisted that the amnesty law has sparked enormous controversy and has called on the Government to seek a qualified majority – which would require the support of the PP – to favor the reconciliation sought by the text, despite the fact that he has recognized that it can get ahead with an absolute majority. Faced with the accusation from the right that the amnesty is not constitutional, Cartabia has admitted that there are discrepancies among experts who “interpret differently the fact that the Constitution is silent” given that it does not address that legal figure. “The Venice Commission considers that the enormous controversy that this matter has aroused would make it preferable that, when possible, the issue of amnesty be stipulated in the Constitution,” he concluded.

For his part, the representative of the European Commission – the director general of the rule of law, replacing the Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, who is already on leave to compete to lead the Council of Europe – has reiterated that they will rule on the law. once it is approved and they remain in contact with the Spanish authorities. “The opinion of the Venice Commission will support the analysis of the European Commission and is a welcome contribution. Their considerations on the rule of law requirements for amnesties provide a useful perspective,” said Julien Mousnier.

“If all the important observations of the Venice Commission are put together, we realize that we are not facing an amnesty law for reconciliation but rather a law of impunity,” said PP MEP Javier Zarzalejos. Maite Pagazaurtundúa from Ciudadanos has used the same expression and has assured that it is “harmful populism” after comparing the Spanish situation with Hungary and Poland. Her liberal colleague Sophie in Veld has lamented that the “situation is so politicized by the parties as a whole.” The extreme right has not participated in the debate.

The social democrat Sippel has complained that the parliamentary commission has accepted a debate on a law that has not even been approved and has assured that it is something unprecedented. “Some groups want to make this a European issue for political reasons. Given that this commission defends democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, I regret that one of our last meetings was dedicated to this type of political games,” stated the German. The PSOE spokesperson, Javier Moreno, has assured that “the objective is to return coexistence, social peace and reunion between Catalans to Catalonia.”

ERC MEP Diana Riba has explained that the amnesty law is a form of “solidarity and recognition towards those who have peacefully and democratically defended legitimate political objectives” and that its approval is an “opportunity for negotiation, allowing for the opening of a new stage.” “Some do not care at all and that is why they have been setting fires, making noise and delegitimizing a democratic instrument for months,” she said, referring to PP, Ciudadanos and Vox: “They live in permanent conflict, they live from permanent conflict. They need it to exist and breathe.”

“What the amnesty law is doing is rectifying a very serious error in the Spanish institutional system; rectify what should never have happened,” said Junts MEP Toni Comín, who applauded the step to “de-judicialize a political conflict” in front of a Supreme Court that, in his opinion, has “twisted” the legislation. “What did the German judges say? “They judged the same facts as the Supreme Court, but they said that there was no sedition, rebellion, or even public disorder,” recalled Comín, who reproached the Venice Commission for the “contradiction” when they recognized that the amnesty is good for reconciliation. “but it requires a qualified majority” for a norm “that in no case will have the support of the PP.