The position of the accused before the National Court
The 12 members of the CDR involved in the Judes operation, accused of conduct related to terrorism, have responded to the National Court denying the need to consult the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the possible violation of the directive European fight against terrorism by the amnesty law of the process. They argue that this regulation does not contradict the Spanish Penal Code and urge the immediate application of the amnesty, asking for the extinction of all criminal liability.
The doubts of the National Court
The court presided over by magistrate Alfonso Guevara has admitted that the events that occurred in September 2019 are within the framework of Organic Law 1/2024, but expresses doubts regarding the possible serious contravention of the European directive to fight terrorism. The defendants’ defenses deny this contradiction and maintain that the amnesty law does not imply the abolition of the prosecution of acts considered as terrorism.
Opposing positions and arguments
CDR’s defenses
CDR lawyers ensure that the amnesty law does not establish a distinction between high- or low-intensity terrorism, but refers directly to European regulations and international humanitarian law, allowing its implementation without contradictions. They argue that the accusations against the 12 CDRs are only tentative and that no personal or material damage was caused, so they request the application of amnesty.
Accusations and opposing positions
Various Spanish organizations, such as the Vox ultra party, the Association of Victims of Terrorism, the organization close to PP Dignitat y Justicia, and the Spanish Association of the Civil Guard and the Unified Association of the Civil Guard, maintain that the law of amnesty should not be applied to the 12 CDRs, arguing the opposite with respect to the seriousness of the facts and the possible consequences.
The interpretation of the European directive and the amnesty law
The National Court emphasizes that the European directive does not define terrorism specifically, but it does address the concept of a terrorist group. While the defenses of the accused argue that the amnesty law does not limit the activities considered as a crime of terrorism, but is based on the referential framework established by the European directive. They claim that this regulation does not imply any tacit or express repeal of the community directive.
Reasoning of the defenses
The lawyers of the CDR explain that the amnesty law does not exclude any type of terrorism nor does it represent a renunciation by the State to pursue these behaviors, and they defend that the application of the regulations is consistent with the European directive. They add that the directive does not question the exercise of legislative sovereignty and that, in case of contradiction, the direct effect of a directive cannot be invoked against an individual.
The request of the defenses
The defenses of the CDRs ask the National Court not to require the opinion of the CJEU and to apply the amnesty law to the accused.