The ECtHR rejects taking a position on the amnesty: "It would be interfering in a democratic process"

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has refused to take a position on the Amnesty law because it would be “interfering in a democratic process.” “A judge can never take a position on a bill because it would be interfering in a democratic process,” defended the president of the court, Síofra O’Leary, in a press conference this Thursday.

This position contrasts with that proposed by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) which in November, even before knowing the text of the bill that is currently being processed in Congress, made an institutional statement against the measure, in which he showed his “intense concern and desolation” for what the proposed law meant “degradation, if not abolition, of the rule of law in Spain.”

With the text already known, the Strasbourg-based court has refused to rule on the law pending its adoption. Now, O’Leary has advanced that the ECtHR could, if it considers it appropriate, refer more questions to Spain once the law is approved.

The ECtHR has had on the table for more than a year and a half the analysis of the 1-O conviction, a case that it is treating as a priority due to its importance in human rights issues. Now it is waiting for Spain to answer a series of doubts from the court about the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the crime of sedition and embezzlement and respect for the rights of association and expression.

The ECtHR said last year that it would process the demands of the pro-independence leaders as a priority, considering that they are impact cases because they are “extremely important.” The court has on the table fifteen complaints from pro-independence leaders, who constitute a “particular group.” However, the ECtHR “closely” followed legislative changes and requests for review of sentences.

The demands related to the process have been grouped into three categories. The first includes cases related to the political rights of pro-independence leaders in preventive detention, the second is the largest with those convicted of sedition and embezzlement by 1-O and the third includes cases referring to freedom of expression by veto of the Constitutional Court to debates in Parliament.