That the elaboration of an amnesty law is a much more political issue than one of legal fit was made very clear yesterday in the debate held in the Col.legi de l’Advocacia (Icab). Organized to address this complex debate from a “legal and academic” perspective, the speakers quickly moved into the political arena. Trustee Esther Giménez Salinas was the first, defending a “restorative amnesty” based on two main issues. That the benefits outweigh the harms and that there is maximum consensus among the affected parties.
The Greuges trustee intervened alongside Joan Ridao, professor of Constitutional Law (UB) and director of the Institute of Autogovernance Studies, Mar Aguilera, professor of Constitutional Law (UB) and Gonzalo Quintero, professor of Criminal Law (URV). In summary, the first three were in favor, with different accents, of the elaboration of an amnesty law, understanding that it fits into the Constitution. Quintero, on the other hand, explained that an amnesty law is possible but not in the case proposed for those prosecuted by the process. Because, he said, it would be an ad personam law, which aims to “subjectively obviate causes and sentences.” It could be something else, “but not an amnesty.”
The trustee defended the idea of ??“restorative amnesty” also understanding that it does not call into question the laws, but is done precisely “because it is a social conflict that cannot be resolved” with current legislation. It is an oblivion full of memory, she said, quoting some verses by Mario Benedetti,
Ridao, for his part, considered that with the reform of the Penal Code for the crimes of sedition and embezzlement, “conditions of equity were not established to address a conflict of a political nature.” A possible scenario now that does not clash “with the value of justice contained in the Constitution.” He explained that the drafting of an amnesty law will contemplate a political trial about the past. And he expressed confidence that “we will be able to find a middle ground, an intelligent account of the facts.” He also supported the idea of ??“restorative amnesty.”
Professor Aguilera opted for a more legal analysis, and explained that “in principle” amnesty is possible within the constitutional framework. He made reference to the multiple international treaties signed by Spain that refer to human rights, recalled that the Spanish legal system defends insertion, and explained that it is different to grant amnesty to someone who has harmed another person than to do so in the case of prosecuted by the process.
It was the professor who changed this common thread about the amnesty and its constitutional fit. Quintero pointed out that what the Government is looking for is a “penal relief law.” According to his analysis, a possible amnesty law designed for a specific series of people will force judges to assess whether the conditions are met. A complex scenario “since there are many crimes that affect specific people.”
A dense debate in which unilaterality also overshadowed. The drafting of an amnesty law does not contemplate, Ridao said, this issue because “it occurs in a very broad context in which it is understood that the events will not be repeated.”
