In the middle of last November, when the socialist group filed in Congress the amnesty bill for those convicted, processed, and accused over actions linked to the Catalan independence process, the latest version of the text, approved this Thursday in committee after negotiations between the PSOE, Junts, and ERC, again sparked division among Constitutional and Criminal Law scholars. University professors consulted by this outlet disagree on numerous nuances that sit in the space between those who argue the amnesty is a tailored solution to satisfy Carles Puigdemont’s demands and those who defend its constitutional guarantees.
There is room for debate on issues such as the protection afforded to nationalists, the changes introduced regarding terrorism offenses, and the role played by the Venice Commission. The disagreement sometimes spills over into political questions, drifting away from legal technicalities, as when the text is framed as a positive step toward dialogue and reconciliation in Catalonia. The bill is expected to receive final approval in Congress in the coming days.
Defects in form
One of the most critical voices on the amnesty is Victoria Rodríguez, a Political Science professor at the Miguel Hernández University in Elche. She contends that the measure does not align with legality, contains procedural flaws, and could be struck down. “It is a tailor-made amnesty that targets the state and violates the principle of exclusive jurisdiction,” she says. Rodríguez also laments that a large portion of decisions would rest on the discretion of individual judges, which she believes undermines legal certainty.
The debate participants repeatedly reference the Venice Commission’s work. Rodríguez notes that the European Union’s aim is consensus, something her analysis suggests is unlikely under the amnesty law. “It protects nationalists while disadvantaging those who are not in favor of independence and deepens division within Spanish and Catalan society,” she adds.
In a more moderate stance, María Asunción Chazarra Quinto, a Criminal Law professor at CEU in Elche, argues that there are no major changes between the November version and the current one. She does point out that the handling of terrorism offenses appears to be a patchwork. She believes the central task is to delimit the issues surrounding certain crimes and potential clashes with matters like embezzlement of public funds or terrorism. From a legal viewpoint, she notes that amnesties tend to provoke broad skepticism, suggesting they should be reserved for very extraordinary and politically and socially justified scenarios.
Like Chazarra Quinto, Manuel Alcaraz, a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Alicante, also believes there have not been substantial changes between texts. He argues the alterations aim to align with European directives. “There is a need to clarify what constitutes terrorism, which has been rather ambiguous since the September 11 attacks,” he explains. He also questions the judicial handling of Puigdemont and the so-called Tsunami case.
Protests
Moving beyond the line between terrorism and the independence movement, Alcaraz notes that protests by farmers or violence in stadiums have shown more latent aggression, yet no one would call those participants terrorists. He laments the time lost between versions and predicts the amnesty debate will extend for several more months: final approval is unlikely to be straightforward, followed by possible appeals and eventual scrutiny by European courts.
The discussion also cites Artemi Rallo, a Constitutional Law professor at Jaume I and a former member of parliament for the Socialist Party in Congress. He states that the Venice Commission considers the amnesty constitutionally legitimate and views the bill as politically mature and legally sophisticated. He characterizes critiques about the text undermining equality and the separation of powers as broad-stroke criticisms.
Overall, the analysis shows a spectrum of opinions about the amnesty’s technical design, its alignment with EU expectations, and its potential political and social repercussions. The voices consulted emphasize the importance of clear legal boundaries, consistent jurisprudence, and the risk of leaving too much to judicial discretion, while acknowledging political realities and the fragile balance sought between dialogue and public order.