The Verdict of the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has issued a prominent notice, stating that taking a position on the issue of amnesty at this time would be considered as ‘interfering with a democratic process’. The president of the court, Síofra O’Leary, has emphasized that a judge must not rule on a bill to avoid interference in the democratic process.
The Position of the ECtHR
The ECtHR, based in Strasbourg, has declined to comment on the amnesty law until its approval, arguing its decision on non-interference in the legislative process. However, O’Leary has indicated that after the approval, the court could raise more questions in Spain, in case it is considered necessary.
The Case of 1-O on the ECtHR’s Table
The ECtHR has kept on the table, for more than a year and a half, the conviction related to 1-O, considering it of high relevance in matters of human rights. It is currently awaiting Spain’s answers to several questions raised about the interpretation of the Supreme Court in relation to the crimes of sedition and embezzlement, as well as respect for the rights of association and expression.
Follow-up of the Demands of the Independent Leaders
The ECtHR closely follows the fifteen denunciations of pro-independence leaders, grouped into categories that include political issues, convictions for sedition and embezzlement, and restrictions on freedom of expression. This monitoring involves special attention to legislative changes and requests for review of convictions.
The Analysis of the Resources of the Expresses of 1-O
The nine expressos, faced with convictions from the Supreme Court, have filed appeals individually. This phase of the ECtHR’s analysis highlights the various issues raised by the Spanish authorities, including the interpretation of the crimes of sedition and embezzlement, and the defense of the fundamental rights of those convicted.
The Crucial Questions of the ECtHR in Spain
Among the issues raised by the ECHR are the possible violation of the right to defence, the consistency of the Supreme Court ruling and the alleged interference with the political rights of the convicted. This phase of preliminary assessment of admissibility does not involve the processing of the appeals, but indicates the principle of their detailed analysis.
