An amnesty law drawn up by its beneficiaries at their own request, in exchange for providing votes for a legislature, is a legal error when it turns out to be the fruit of a preparatory agreement in exchange for immunity from the legislature. Authors of an uprising against the state.
Before the 23J general elections, it was warned that amnesty was against the Constitution and that shortening the investigation periods in favor of the defendant was unreasonable.
Seven months after the government was dismissed, electoral difficulties forced a change of view, amnesty became perfectly constitutional, and charges against judges were immediate.
While the investigation was ongoing, a judge from the National Court reviewed the investigation of the Tsunami case that occurred in Barcelona in November 2019, where declared defenders of the republic were dissatisfied with the decision of the process. , carried out public nuisances; the instructor interpreted this as signs of terrorism and blamed the actual beneficiary and negotiator of the amnesty.
Negotiators moved forward by approving preemptive amendments that would exclude from amnesty only those convicted of terrorist crimes. Failure to treat other pardon recipients equally carried the feared risk of unconstitutionality.
Another change was made in a deliberate and steamy development to the text, with the necessary caveats: the “seriousness” of the human rights violation in each terrorist act and the “direct intent” attributable to the authors; left its evaluation to the discretion of the judges.
In another summary, the president of the Barcelona court of inquiry 1, the trainer of the Voloh case, who tried to clarify who did what, financing, use of public funds, interventions, exposed the actions of the Russian conspiracy on critical dates, opens the door to incriminate its heroes. Nature: crime of treason. Big words.
The seriousness of a crime against the security of the state (actions that endanger the integrity and stability of the nation) attracted the attention of the legal community; This coincided with the (almost) unanimous decision of the European Parliament to investigate the background of the links to the state. Catalan independence movement and the Kremlin.
The vote yielded an unexpected result (179-171) and the proposal was returned to the Parliamentary Justice Committee. The separatists’ reaction was immediate. Waterloo, which uses seven treatment chairs, overturned the law, arguing that two of the law’s demands were not met: blanket amnesty for all involved and immediate recourse.
The ensuing crisis would reveal a new shortcut: the “redefinition” of the crime of terrorism, to call it the hypothetical crime committed by separatists. There are two types: those that are excusable because of a lack of seriousness or intentionality, and those that are inexcusable because they violate human rights.
This reformulation could have unforeseen consequences that could result in the release or reduction of sentences of 150 current prisoners for terrorism offenses in accordance with existing regulations.
Calling for moderation, the President of the Executive defended his intention not to amend the law, which was “bold and restorative, in line with European legislation”, as well as his desire to shorten teaching periods, prevent extensions and, incidentally, clip the wings of judges. The person requesting the moratorium.
This mandate, aimed at saving the legislature, would conflict with the strong socialist opposition to the Criminal Procedure Code reform introduced by the popular in 2015. The repeal, which extends investigation periods, seeks to crack down on PP corruption – which has prospered after five years.
According to criminalist Beccaria’s “non-criminal thought” perspective, the only thing that remains outside of crime – by democratic definition – is thought.
The rest are actions and facts subject to the values and principles that regulate the coexistence of a country; one of their distinctive features is the Criminal Code, which, in our case, is comprehensive while limiting what terrorism is: “Destroy the Constitution” disrupts order, destabilizes the functioning of political, economic and social institutions of the State, seriously disturbs public peace, promotes a state of terrorism in the population ” (article 573).
It is up to judges to decide whether a phenomenon can be classified as a crime; To do this, they judge behavior, not ideologies, and condemn the means used to achieve goals.
Therefore, the curses made in the capital of Europe have no legal value: “Catalan independence is not terrorism” (who said?), “Catalan society is in favor of amnesty” (what part of Catalan society? There are no non-separatists?).
There is nothing better than investigating proven facts to assess the nature of the crime (violent acts, attacks with explosives and flammable substances, arbitrary fire, Molotov cocktails, burning containers, incessant rain of bullets, occupation of railway lines and airport runways, suspension of flights and trains), He conducts a stress test on what happened at Plaza Urquinaona and Josep Tarradellas-El Prat Airport.
In short, mild terrorism for advocates of coexistence. For those who were subjected to terrorism, as for the injured police officers who were included in the case as a special charge… these were actions that endangered life, bodily integrity, freedom of persons and protection of property.
Examination of the norm shows that regardless of the votes of those granted amnesty and the votes preferred by politicians, these facts are consistent with Spanish and European types of crime.
When it comes to preserving amnesty and questioning terrorism at all costs, one may wonder: Isn’t this an “excuse”…? Judges, prosecutors, or even judges cannot decide what is or is not terrorism. It is related to the Criminal Code.
The seriousness of the chosen method of promoting coexistence lies in its origin: impunity in exchange for votes; in procedure: belittling the Constitution, ignoring the opposition, deceiving the public; purpose: to obtain personal benefit by using public means. In other words: political corruption and embezzlement.
This may be an insult, perhaps a joke, in any case, it is surprising that after sixty years of terrorism, with hundreds of dead, wounded, displaced, extorted, threatened, all victims, another has been resorted to instead: humanitarian terrorism. , low-calorie, hypoglycemic – to save a fugitive from justice and pardon rioters who set fire to the streets or violently storm an airport.
The final say on political survival, including the escape of fugitives from prosecution, will be left to prosecutors and judges, who will be responsible for instructing and condemning if this coincides with the conditions established by law. Prosecutors of the Supreme Court of Appeals have opened the door to investigate signs of terrorism, but the final decision of the prosecution is not binding for the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
Montesquieu, the father of the separation of powers, said: “The law should be like death, exempting no one.”
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.