The Supreme Court Opposes the Application of the Amnesty Law
Recently, the Supreme Court has made the decision to oppose the application of the amnesty law to the leaders of the process who have already been convicted of organizing the 1-O referendum. This measure also includes maintaining the arrest warrants for Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Lluís Puig.
Joaquín Urías, former lawyer of the Constitutional Court, has expressed his opinion on this decision, highlighting that the court will not be the resource for the law that seeks to repair the judicial persecution of the independence movement. Urías emphasizes that this determination marks the end of the amnesty, pointing out that the Supreme Court judges are convinced that their function involves reinterpreting the laws in the most convenient way to their ideal of Spain and relationship with the independence movement.
The Role of the Constitutional Court
Urías also addresses the role of the Constitutional Court, explaining that while it is above the Supreme Court, its role is not to apply the laws, but to interpret the Constitution. Although the leaders of the process could file an appeal for protection before the Constitutional Court, this court will not determine the application of the amnesty law, but rather whether constitutional rights have been violated.
In relation to the decision of the Constitutional Court in other cases, Urías highlights that this court can annul resolutions and request the Supreme Court to issue new decisions, which could prolong the process for several years.
Impact on Political Relations and the Constitutional Crisis
The Supreme Court’s decision also raises questions about its impact on Pedro Sánchez’s relationship with Junts per Catalunya and Esquerra Republicana, as well as the possibility of investing Salvador Illa as president of the Generalitat. Urías suggests that this determination seeks to block the amnesty and dynamite the Spanish legislature, with the aim of generating tensions between the government and the independence movement.
Regarding the leaked audios of Judge Aguirre, Urías comments that these reveal the intention to annul the amnesty and undermine the government of Pedro Sánchez. However, he points out that it is not surprising, since he considers that this type of attitude is common in the group of judges.
Impartiality of the Courts
Regarding the impartiality of the courts, Urías highlights that although the Constitutional Court is the court with the least reason to doubt its impartiality, the ordinary courts, including the Supreme Court, could be perceived as less impartial due to the way in which they are judges are selected.
In short, the Supreme Court’s decision on the amnesty law raises important questions about the Spanish judicial system, its relationship with political power and its impact on the political situation in Catalonia.