118 CHA

He Constitutional Court (TC) He has endorsed, with the six votes in favor of the progressive majority and the four against the conservative minority, the Amnesty Law destined to erase the crimes committed within the framework of the Catalan independence process, which reached its climax with the 1-O, at the conclusion that the measure of grace is not prohibited in our Magna Carta and that pursues a legitimate purpose, discarding the “Autoamnesty“.

The plenary has resolved without surprises the appeal of unconstitutionality presented by the PP, which attacked the entire legal text, approving with hardly any modifications the presentation written by the vice president of the TC, immaculate Montalbán, that the president of the Court of Guarantees, Cándido Conde-Pumpidohe described as “excellent” at the start of the deliberations.

As reported by the TC“The sentence rejects the thesis that the Constitution prohibits amnesty as a legal institution for the only fact of not containing an express authorization.”

In this regard, he points out that “constitutional silence cannot be interpreted as a prohibition of such an institution.” “Everything that is not constitutionally forbidden is, in principle, within the scope of the legislator,” he says.

The ruling also rules out that the amnesty is contrary to the principle of separation of powers, to the reserve of jurisdiction and the constitutional obligation to execute the firm judicial resolutions. On this he affirms that, by granting an amnesty, “Parliament is not replacing the courts in determining guilt, but establishing that, for extrajuridic reasons, punitive responsibility is extinguished.” “Amnesty’s laws or judge or execute what is tried,” he says.

It also establishes that amnesty should not necessarily respond to an “ideal of justice”, considering that it is admissible when it responds to an extraordinary situation. In this case, it refers to “the constitutional crisis derived from the Catalan secessionist process, which was an unprecedented challenge to the constitutional order, to the unity of the State and national sovereignty, as well as a deep fracture of democratic coexistence.”

Along these lines, the magistrates reject the allegation that it is a “Autoamnesty“,” typical of authoritarian political systems or states in transition, dictated or authorized by those who benefit from such immunity or by the institutions that have perpetrated those acts or covered to their authors, to prevent the investigation and persecution of constitutive behaviors of the most serious crimes against human rights. ”

Thus, just gives the reason to PP In three concrete issues: see unconstitutional “asymmetry” to amnesty those who supported and opposed the ‘process‘; that the law includes “an unusual qualification” to continue with the “criminal activities in the future”; and that only imposes listening to the prosecution and public bodies harmed in the cases in the Court of Accounts to request their archive.