Final verdict of the prosecutor general on the amnesty. Spain's public prosecution service has now declared and replied to the Supreme Court that all the cases it has before it related to the Catalan independence process must be amnestied. This includes that of judge Pablo Llarena, with Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, Lluís Puig and Marta Rovira as defendants, that of Manuel Marchena, with Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull and Dolors Bassa (convicted at the sentencing of October 14th, 2019) and Clara Ponsatí (prosecuted), and that of the Democratic Tsunami, with Carles Puigdemont and Ruben Wagensberg as investigated for terrorism. In all three cases, the prosecutors favour the amnestying of all those involved because they consider that all crimes are included in the scope of the amnesty. The reports are signed by Ángeles Sánchez Conde (the lieutenant prosecutor of the Supreme Court and number two to the prosecutor general) and Joaquín Sánchez-Covisa (the chief prosecutor of the Supreme Court’s criminal division). Those are the two names that Álvaro García Ortiz designated after the Board of Prosecutors endorsed his thesis and chose to remove the four rebellious prosecutors of the Supreme Court leaders' trial, Fidel Cadena, Javier Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal and Jaime Moreno.
Lift the arrest warrants for Puigdemont, Puig, Comín and Rovira
First case: that of Pablo Llarena against Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín, Lluís Puig and Marta Rovira, all four politicians in exile. In a 32-page report, the two prosecutors state that all the facts of the case fall within the amnesty: they ask for "dismissal of the case" and demand that "all interim measures that are in force" be lifted. This includes, of course, arrest warrants.
Following the directive of the prosecutor general, who advocates amnestying all misuse of funds offences and accusations, the prosecutors emphasize that "acts directly aimed at financing or paying for the pro-independence consultations must be understood as included in the objective scope of "law enforcement and, therefore, amnesties" as long as they have occurred "without a purpose of enrichment". They state that this is the "interpretative hypothesis that best contributes to the achievement of the goals pursued with the passing of this law". The letter also emphasizes that the initial draft of the proposed law did not make the misuse of funds "dependent" on not being aimed at enrichment, and emphasizes that introducing this nuance "obeyed" the will to respond to the recommendations of the Venice Commission. It concludes that the introduction of the amended text for this section was only intended to limit "the acts of misuse of funds amnestied" to those where "the diversion of funds was exclusively aimed at the holding of the consultations". The arguments raised here, in the text presented to Pablo Llarena, are the same as those they defend in the response to the Supreme Court criminal chamber, presided over by Manuel Marchena.
The prosecutors also argue that, with respect to the October 1st referendum, "there is no evidence that the financial interests of the European Union were affected" and, consequently, there is no basis for asserting the applicability of exclusion on these grounds that the Supreme Court prosecutors clung to. The prosecutors point out that "the diverted funds were not European funds" and that the EU budget "suffered no impact due to the diversion of funds".
Apply amnesty to Puigdemont and Wagensberg for the Democratic Tsunami
Second case: in the hands of the investigating judge Susana Polo: the terrorism investigation into Carles Puigdemont and Ruben Wagensberg for the Democratic Tsunami. The text from the prosecutors, 11 pages long and signed by María de los Ángeles Sánchez Conde, is clear: "None of the facts investigated has intentionally caused a serious violation of human rights as regulated in Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and international humanitarian law". And, therefore, it cannot be excluded from the amnesty. This is exactly the exception that the political parties - the PSOE, Junts and ERC - agreed to include to protect those involved in the Tsunami case to an abusive interpretation of the amnesty. The lieutenant prosecutor notes that the Supreme Court asserted that the purpose of the Tsunami protest platform was the "subversion of the constitutional order and the serious destabilization of democratic institutions", an objective that "does not coincide greatly" with what the European directive "considers essential for the events to be classified as terrorist". The prosecutors' text arrives on the same day that Susana Polo has accepted the appearance of Puigdemont in the case and has given him a deadline of ten days to report on the "applicability" of the amnesty.
The text points out that in the court ruling of February 29th "none of those investigated are accused of causing death, abortion, injuries to the fetus or loss or the uselessness of a sense, impotence, sterility, serious deformity, nor crimes classified as torture or degrading inhuman treatment" and asserts that "intentional acts likely to be classified as terrorist crimes" in the European directive are of "more seriousness than those carried out" in the Democratic Tsunami case. Therefore, "there is no doubt that the facts investigated can be included within the area" of the amnesty law, given that "they are within the affected time limits and among the acts capable of being framed as able to be amnestied": their "trigger" was the sentencing of the Supreme Court independence leaders trial, "opposition to it" and "support for those convicted", it concludes.
End the ban on office-holding for Junqueras, Romeva, Turull and Bassa
Finally, the last text presented this Wednesday is the one that responds to judge Manuel Marchena in relation to Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull, Dolors Bassa and Clara Ponsatí. Again, the prosecutors advocate a complete amnesty for all cases. They request that the criminal responsibility of Junqueras, Romeva, Turull and Bassa, convicted of misuse of public funds and disobedience in the Supreme Court trial, be declared "extinguished", and demands that the execution of the penalties be "terminated", that they be declared "extinguished" of civil and accounting responsibilities" and that "the elimination of criminal records" be agreed. Also today, Junqueras has asked Marchena to apply the amnesty claiming that it is the "will of the legislator". In the case of Ponsatí, prosecuted for the crime of disobedience, prosecutors are asking for "dismissal of the case".
The responses from the public prosecutor's office arrive on the last day that Pablo Llarena and Manuel Marchena set as a deadline for the parties to decide on "the applicability or inapplicability" of the amnesty. Now it is the turn of the judges again, who will have to decide how to apply the amnesty in the cases they are studying and whether to present questions of unconstitutionality to the Constitutional Court or preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice. However, there is no set time when they will make their pronouncements. As for Susana Polo, the judge initially gave time until next week, and today opened a new deadline of ten days for the defence lawyers of Carles Puigdemont to respond.