After a first draft of the Venice Commission report on the Amnesty law had different readings by the Government and the Popular Party, the advisory body on judicial matters of the Council of Europe has already ruled on the Spanish proposal for those involved in the independence process. After meeting this Friday, the members of the Commission approved a resolution that recognizes the existence of amnesty laws in different European countries and maintains that reconciliation is a legitimate political objective for this, but at the same time questions that it is processed by the urgently and encourages its approval by a qualified majority larger than the absolute majority in the Congress of Deputies required for an organic law.
According to sources from the Council of Europe, which have been told to this newspaper, the final text will be known on Monday, presumably in the afternoon, for strictly technical reasons, since it must allow time to carry out all the relevant translations.
The summary that the Commission released this Friday reiterates that amnesty laws should not be designed to cover specific individuals and makes a series of recommendations. To begin with, ask for more specificity about the material and temporal scope of the application of the amnesty. It also demands that a closer causal relationship be established between “the consultations held in Catalonia on November 9, 2014 and October 1, 2017, their preparation or their consequences” and the acts of embezzlement and corruption. Regarding terrorism, he assures that the principle should be that amnesties “are only compatible with international standards” if “serious human rights violations” are excluded.
Likewise, the Commission considers that, as long as the decision on the individual benefits of the amnesty is made by a judge based on the criteria contained in the amnesty bill, “there is no question of separation of powers.”
However, noting that the amnesty bill has been presented as a legislative proposal, “a procedure with limited consultation to the public, interested parties and other state institutions” and has followed “an urgent procedure.” In this sense, he warns that the norm has caused “a deep and virulent division in the political class, institutions, the judiciary, the academic world and Spanish society.” This is why the Commission encourages authorities and political forces to “take the time necessary for meaningful dialogue, in a spirit of loyal cooperation between State institutions, as well as between the majority and the opposition, in order to achieve social and political reconciliation, and consider exploring restorative justice procedures.”
It is at this point when the consultative body recommends that the authorities try to achieve a qualified majority greater than the majority required by the Constitution for the adoption of an organic law.
The socialist Isaura Leal, second secretary of the Congress Board, present at the session, has shown herself to be “enormously satisfied” with the meeting in which, in her opinion, “it has been proven” that the amnesty is “within the framework of the international and European law” and guarantees “the principle of equality”. Regarding the separation of powers, Leal argues that the law will be applied by judges. And in relation to the support that the law generates, she has indicated that it has a parliamentary majority that “credits it with the sufficient and social endorsement of the citizens.” Likewise, she has emphasized that the Venice Commission itself “sees it proven that the parliamentary processing has been carried out in accordance with the established procedures with all guarantees.” For the socialist deputy, the established formula is appropriate and a constitutional reform as demanded by the PP was not necessary.
On the other hand, the president of the Senate, the popular Pedro Rollán, has seen the PP’s arguments against the rule endorsed in the opinion. “It was a plenary session to five,” said the popular in the sense that, in his opinion, “each and every one” of his allegations “have been collected and expressed by some of the rapporteurs who have been analyzing even the own document that was sent by the Congress of Deputies yesterday. The president of the Senate also believes that the opinion makes an express reference to the fact that given the importance of an amnesty and that it has led to significant division and tension “it would have been It is necessary to advance a constitutional reform.” Rollán has also appreciated that the ruling rejects an investigative commission in Congress, in which “the judges have to go and give explanations.”
The document of this entity is not binding, only advisory, but it was one of the Popular Party’s assets to elevate the analysis of the amnesty law to the European institutions. The Venice Commission thus responds to a request from the Senate, controlled by the absolute majority of the PP, after three months of study. The answer focuses on two specific aspects. On the one hand, it refers in general terms to the requirements that amnesty laws must have to comply with international standards and the rule of law, decreeing that reconciliation is a legitimate goal for amnesties, one of the arguments that has been reiterated by the Executive of Pedro Sánchez for months. On the other hand, it aims to answer the six specific questions that the Senate transferred to the organization. In them, the Upper House wanted to clear up doubts about whether the elimination of criminal responsibilities – for acts committed against territorial integrity or for crimes of terrorism – were compatible with the rule of law and the criteria of the Commission. At the same time, the Senate asked if the measures established in the Amnesty law condition Spanish judges – and, therefore, comply with the rule of law – and if the separation of powers is endangered. The final text is slightly different from the draft that was leaked two weeks ago and after proposals for amendment to this preliminary text had been presented by both the Senate Board and the Congress of Deputies Board.
Specifically, the Congress of Deputies board had responded to some of the allegations raised by that preliminary text, explaining that they already saw all of these recommendations fulfilled in the version that has been processed in Parliament. They also added, given the concern of the Venice Commission about the haste with which the law has been carried out – ensuring that an accelerated legislative procedure is not appropriate for amnesty laws – that the parliamentary process will last approximately six months, so in practice it has not occurred urgently.
Popular sources had said that, despite being satisfied with the draft, they presented five amendments aimed at reinforcing the Commission’s recommendations in the draft, such as demanding the need for a constitutional reform to incorporate amnesties or to emphasize that it must be processed through ordinary and not urgent. In any case, the Venice Commission points out that it is not a competent body to comment on the constitutionality of the norm, a question that must ultimately be decided by the Spanish Constitutional Court and that must be debated by Spanish constitutional experts. Nor does it evaluate the compatibility of the text with the Law of the European Union and also ruled that in no case does the amnesty affect the separation of powers, since the norm leaves the amnesty of specific acts in accordance with the law in the hands of the judges.
The 61 voting members of the Venice Commission have locked themselves in since early morning in the museum of the Scuola Grande San Giovanni Evagelista, where the plenary sessions of this advisory body are held four times a year in the city of the canals thanks to an agreement with the Italian region of Veneto. Before, they examined other cases relating to countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland and Ukraine, and then, behind closed doors, the final exchanges of opinion took place between the members of the Venice Commission and the president of the Senate, Pedro Rollán, and the secretary second of the table of the Congress of Deputies, Isaura Leal. Among the legal experts who have drafted the final text are prominent names such as the former president of the Italian Constitutional Court Marta Cartabia – the first woman to achieve this – or the Bulgarian Prime Minister Philip Dimitrov.
