PSOE and partners shield Tsunami and CDR in the amnesty by excluding terrorism only with "serious violations" of human rights

PSOE, Sumar, ERC, Bildu, PNV, Junts per Catalunya and Podemos agreed this Tuesday to exclude terrorism crimes from the amnesty bill "as long as they have manifestly and with direct intention caused serious violations of human rights." which would allow amnesty for the 12 members of the Committees for the Defense of the Republic (CDR) and the 10 prosecuted for the riots allegedly promoted by 'Democratic Tsunami' that have been investigated in the National Court.

This has been agreed within the framework of the Justice Commission of Congress in which they have agreed on various technical amendments to the law proposal presented by the PSOE last November to amnesty a decade of the Catalan independence 'procés', including crimes of usurpation of public functions, embezzlement, disobedience, public disorder and prevarication.

Specifically, they have agreed to modify article 2, section d), to specify that terrorist crimes would be excluded from the amnesty "as long as" the intention of the accused was to generate "serious violations of human rights."

According to the parliamentary sources consulted, this modification uses the parameters set by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, "in order to offer a clear and international reference for this issue."

With this amendment, the people identified in the judicial proceedings relating to the CDR and 'Tsunami Democràtic' would be amnestied. In the latter, among others, the fled former Catalan president and leader of Junts, Carles Puigdemont, and the general secretary of ERC, Marta Rovira, were mentioned.

An amendment to article 4, relating to the effects on criminal responsibility, has also been agreed upon to establish that it will be the judicial body that has knowledge of the case and not the competent body - as established in the bill - that will be in charge. to order the "immediate release" of the beneficiaries of the amnesty who were in prison, either because their provisional detention had been ordered or they were serving a sentence.

Within the framework of this amendment, it is also proposed that said body must agree to "the immediate lifting of any precautionary measures" that have been adopted for "actions or omissions included in the objective scope of this law, with the sole exception of the measures of a civil nature".

Likewise, it is proposed that "the judicial body that is hearing the case" nullifies the search and arrest warrants, both national and European and international.

In turn, PSOE, Sumar, ERC, Bildu, PNV, Junts per Catalunya and Podemos have agreed in said amendment that "the suspension of criminal proceedings for any reason" does not prevent the lifting of the agreed precautionary measures. And it is proposed that the judicial body that is hearing the case terminate the execution of all custodial sentences and fines once the law comes into force.

This section is especially relevant since legal sources consulted by Europa Press have stressed that the possible questions of unconstitutionality that judges could present to the Constitutional Court, as well as preliminary questions to the Superior Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), to consult on the amnesty law would paralyze the application of the law until said bodies responded. The PSOE and its partners wanted to leave in writing that said consultations and their eventual suspensive effect on the procedure would not prevent the application of the law.

According to the parliamentary sources consulted, the amendments agreed upon this Tuesday provide "greater clarity and exhaustiveness" to the article on the effects of the amnesty in the criminal field, in order to provide this section with "greater legal certainty" and reinforce the jurisdictional function. of judges and magistrates when applying these effects, especially with regard to the lifting of precautionary measures in the event of a possible suspension of the judicial process for any reason.