Tuesday, July 5

The rights cling to some resources of doubtful judicial route as the last way to annul the pardons

Popular Party, Vox and Ciudadanos launched an offensive against pardons to the prisoners of the procés more than a month ago with which they tried to bring down the progressive government. Most of the published polls then pointed to a generalized rejection of these pardons by Spanish society and, in light of this scenario, the three rights sought to obtain political gain from those sentiments against the measure of grace, trying to wear down the society as much as possible. coalition of PSOE and United We Can.

Casado asks all the PP charges to defend that the pardons are unconstitutional despite being false

Know more

Different initiatives were proposed – ranging from the failed collection of PP signatures to the Colón protest on the 13th in which there was less attendance than expected despite having been supported by the three right – but all of them failed. . This Tuesday, the Council of Ministers approved the nine pardons to the independence leaders. Some pardons that in recent days have been endorsed by the majority of the Congress of Deputies – which last week rejected a PP motion against pardons and this Tuesday a second initiative -, Catalan and state trade union, social and business organizations, and even by the heads of the Catholic Church in Catalonia.

In this scenario, the only way that the three rights now contemplate to annul these pardons is to present their announced appeals before the courts which, however, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court – the sentencing court of pardoned prisoners – would have a doubtful judicial tour.

The current president of the High Court and of the General Council of the Judicial Power (CGPJ), the conservative Carlos Lesmes, wrote in a 2013 order that the deputies and senators representing parties were not entitled to ask the Supreme Court to revoke a pardon from the Government. Unlike criminal cases, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, before which government acts such as pardoning the procés prisoners can be appealed, is very restrictive when it comes to allowing political parties to appear. The most common is that the pardon is appealed by the victim of the crime.

The PP becomes entangled by mixing the 1-O with the CDRs

Despite this, the leader of the PP, Pablo Casado, assured early Tuesday that he does believe it possible for his party to appeal to the Supreme Court. In an interview in Zero Wave, the highest leader of the popular announced that he is going to request “legitimacy” to present his appeal, understanding that the PP is “affected party” after a judge, as a result of a report from the Civil Guard, has taken a statement from some members of the Committees for the Defense of the Republic (CDR) – groups of pro-independence activists – who, according to Casado, “recognized that they were investigating people from the Popular Party”, like himself, to “attack.”

“I think that in this case we can say that if the CDRs are the continuation of October 1, if they are those to whom Mr. Torra told them to ‘keep pushing’, and they are those who reported their actions to the President of the Generalitat, to the what they nicknamed GandalfWe can say that we are the injured party, “said the leader of the PP in the aforementioned interview.

Casado’s interpretation clashes with the fact that he speaks of two different causes: that of the procés leaders was judged in the Supreme Court and the PP did not even exercise the popular accusation, which was in the hands of Vox, while the case of the CDR is still in the investigation phase at the National Court and there is no date for the trial. The popular ones are not involved in the cause of the CDRs today, although they are studying it, according to the PP spokesperson in Congress, Cuca Gamarra, said on Tuesday.

In addition, in the report cited by Casado, the Civil Guard limits itself to attributing to one of the CDR investigated internet searches on the leader of the PP and other anti-independence politicians, such as Manuel Valls. The Armed Institute points out as a possibility that the searches “would have as their objective the possible realization of an action against said persons”, but no plan or document was found in the homes of the investigated CDRs that went beyond the aforementioned searches of the characters In Internet. All those investigated in the case remain at large after the National Court itself cast doubt on the terrorist nature of the group maintained by the investigating judge and the Civil Guard.

Vox will denounce all ministers

As a person in the case tried in the Supreme Court, Vox has also announced that it will appeal the pardons by way of administrative contention. And, this Tuesday, the extreme right also announced its decision to bring each of the ministers of the coalition government of PSOE and United We Can to court. “Faced with a government kneeling before the coup, separatism and barbarism, only Vox remains,” the party led by Santiago Abascal wrote on Twitter. According to what the deputy Macarena Olona explained at a press conference, the members of the Executive have incurred, according to her, in “evident political and institutional corruption” and their behavior could be considered a sign of “prevarication.” Vox also wants a new motion of censure to be held against Pedro Sánchez like the one he presented in the past and which failed after not getting more support than those of Santiago Abascal’s own party. But the PP, a necessary force for the initiative to prosper, made it clear on Tuesday that it is not interested in participating in a motion that, like that of October, is bound to be overthrown by the parliamentary majority of the left and the nationalists.

From Ciudadanos, its president, Inés Arrimadas, also confirmed this Tuesday from the Parliament of Catalonia the presentation of another appeal before the Supreme Court considering that the pardons “fail to comply with the mandatory report of the Supreme, the promise of Sánchez and common sense.” In his opinion, the measure is only “useful for Sánchez and the legion of plugged in that he has in the institutions, as well as for the legion of plugged in that the independence movement has and its beach bars watered with public funds.”

Given the doubts that have been raised about whether these decrees can be appealed, the spokesman for Ciudadanos in Congress, Edmundo Bal, who is a State attorney, explained that the jurisprudence indicates that “the reasons why they can appeal, “such as the fact that the Government has made that decision against the judgment of the sentencing chamber and the Prosecutor’s Office. This circumstance, as Bal explained, has led to many resources being estimated by the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has ended up revoking some of the pardons granted. Another cause used by Ciudadanos is that the pro-independence leaders “not only have not regretted what they did, but they have warned that they will do it again.”

PP, Vox and Ciudadanos will have to present their appeals before the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court, because as it is an agreement of the Council of Ministers, this is the body to which the jurisdictional control corresponds. In any case, since the pardon is a “political act”, the High Court cannot make a jurisdictional review of the decision to pardon, but must limit itself to verifying whether the procedure – the so-called “regulated elements” – has been carried out. done correctly. The hypothetical resources would not also stop the execution of the pardons, according to sources from the Supreme Court explained this week.

The route in the Supreme and the Constitutional

However, the only way that the appellants would have to avoid the release of the prisoners would be to request it through very precautionary measures – that this Tuesday, after the approval of the pardons, no PP, Vox, or Citizens were presented – that would force them to the Chamber to decide within 48 hours and without listening to the other party —in this case, the Administration— whether or not to paralyze its execution until its decision on the merits of the appeal. The legal sources consulted see this paralysis as very unlikely considering that it is a measure of freedom and that even the Supreme Court has in the past questioned the legitimacy of the political parties to appeal this measure of grace.

After the process of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional path would also be open. In principle, they could file an appeal for protection alleging a possible violation of effective judicial protection by both the political parties, in the event that the Third Chamber rejected their claim to annul the pardons; such as the Government or the organizations that have requested the grace measure, if these were canceled. However, sources from the guarantee court also argued this week that it is a future possibility and that we should first see in detail what the Supreme Court does and also who presents the appeals. For the filing of the amparo remedy, it is necessary to have exhausted the previous judicial remedy before, as well as to have invoked in it, as soon as possible, the violation of the fundamental right that it intends to enforce before the Constitutional Court.