Sumar presented yesterday in Barcelona the opinion on a proposed amnesty law for the process, which proposes as a main element to eliminate all criminal repercussions of “actions or omissions” on the part of citizens “that have had as their purpose the vindication ” of the right of self-determination.
The event, announced on Friday by the leader of Sumar and second vice-president of the Spanish Government, Yolanda Díaz, was held at the Ateneu Barcelonès, with the attendance of Díaz himself, who did not take the floor, but left the interventions to opinion coordinator and experts in criminal and constitutional law.
The 37-page report, drawn up by five university professors who are experts in criminal law, has the ambitious objective of “establishing the foundations for the solution of the political conflict between Catalonia and the State”. For this reason, it specifies a series of crimes that should be protected by an amnesty law, committed between January 2013 and the constitution of the General Courts on August 17, when, they point out, a second phase “of the decriminalization policy” of the conflict, which began with the pardons of pro-independence leaders. The amnesty would affect the politicians and also some of the policemen charged by the 1-O.
More concreteness is given to the scope of the measure of grace, referring to the “vindication of self-determination”, a downward correction with respect to the draft that was made public on Friday through the media, which protected under the umbrella of the amnesty “all acts of political intent, whatever the result”. In fact, on Monday Sumar already downgraded the opinion to a non-binding “work tool” and “academic reflection”.
Over the course of fifteen pages, the opinion goes on to argue the constitutionality of the amnesty. The authors point out that despite not being established in the Constitution, it offers “enough support” to endorse it and “there are not a few rules” of the legal system that “expressly” grant a letter of naturalization to this measure of grace
The opinion refutes common arguments against the amnesty, such as the one that points out that it “attacks the division of powers”, since it prevents judging and enforcing what has been judged. According to the experts, the pardon produces the same effects, but it is not considered unconstitutional. However, they emphasize that the pardon is promoted “for reasons of equity or justice” and the amnesty has “strictly political motivations”.
In addition, it states that the “political conflict” was aggravated “by a forceful criminal repression and by the lack of proportionality with which some judicial decisions were adopted”.
Regarding the material limits of an amnesty law, the document points out that it could not be applied to crimes against humanity or if they are illegal that do not prescribe. And he emphasizes that it must be adapted to the principles of proportionality and equality, so that “there cannot be a differentiated treatment between those who participated in the events”. This anticipates possible appeals, defending that it does not break the principle of equality, because all parties will have the same treatment.
Among those who took the floor, the professor of Constitutional Law Javier Pérez Royo said that “amnesty does not raise a single problem” of constitutional fit, the only limit being the crimes that cannot be amnestied. “There is nothing like this in the process, and yes it was in the amnesty of 1977”, he defended.
The professor of Criminal Law at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, ??Mercedes García Arán, defended “advancement in coexistence and social peace” and assured that “it is not about asking for forgiveness, neither the State, nor the amnesties”.
For Constitutional Law professor and ex-lawyer of the TC Joaquín Urias, during the process there was a “judicial inequality that must be repaired”. “The amnesty law restores equality, it is not a favor to pro-independence”, he stressed.
