The Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV) and the Independent Judicial Forum (FJI) have expressed their compliance with the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that supports the amnesty law, although they have emphasized that the pronouncement was limited to aspects related to terrorism and the protection of the EU's financial interests, leaving out other controversial issues.
Both associations have reacted to the two rulings issued this Thursday by the CJEU: one, in response to the Court of Auditors regarding the accounting responsibility of former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and others involved in the use of public funds in the financing of the 'procés'; and another, to a question from the National Court concerning the crime of terrorism in the case against members of the Committees for the Defense of the Republic (CDR).
In a statement, AJFV emphasizes that the ruling "does not endorse an automatic or unconditional application of the amnesty" and recalls that the CJEU specifies that the amnesty law "does not imply the non-application of the Penal Code or the extinction 'ex lege' of criminal liability."
According to the association, the norm acts as "an impediment to prosecution that must be ascertained in each specific case by the competent judicial bodies."
"Consequently, acts that have intentionally caused serious human rights violations remain excluded from the amnesty and fully subject to prosecution," insists AJFV.
The association also emphasizes that the CJEU "has ruled exclusively on Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concluding that the crimes committed in the context of the Catalan independence process and those committed in another context do not constitute, for those purposes, comparable situations."
However, it warns that this conclusion "does not resolve the separate issue of whether the amnesty introduces unequal treatment among Spaniards contrary to Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution," a point on which AJFV maintains "its reservations."
Path in the Constitutional Court and role of judges
In relation to the processing of the law before the Constitutional Court, which still has to resolve appeals for protection from 'procés' leaders, AJFV recalls that the guarantor body "in no case can act as a cassation instance of the Supreme Court", nor substitute its "criterion in the interpretation and application of ordinary criminal law in matters such as those raised by the Amnesty Law".
The association emphasizes that "the decision of the CJEU does not determine its automatic application in specific processes and with respect to specific facts, since the effective application of the law corresponds to ordinary judges and courts, through reasoned and individualized resolutions, and with full respect for criminal, procedural and European legality, which is what corresponds to a State of law such as Spain".
The president of Foro Judicial Independiente, Roberto García Ceniceros, has stated to Europa Press that the ruling "falls within the dynamics of the normality of institutions".
At the same time, he has emphasized that "the core of this ruling is whether or not it affects the terrorism directive and the budgetary interests of the European Union".
He also recalled that the "main objections" raised by FJI to the amnesty law "focused on the violation of the Constitution -- judicial independence, self-amnesty, etc. --, aspects that this ruling does not address, and which were already resolved to a large extent by the TC", in a resolution whose reasoning the association does not share, but which they "logically" must "assume and abide by".
JJpD values that the CJEU clears up doubts about European law
The spokesperson for Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia (JJpD), Edmundo Rodríguez, has indicated to this agency that the CJEU's pronouncement "clarifies that European law was not affected by the amnesty law".
Likewise, he maintains that the CJEU "denies all those who maintained that its approval and application would mean the end of the rule of law".
"On the contrary, its considerations show that the purpose for which it was approved, with broad support from the representation of popular sovereignty, pursuing institutional normalization, is in accordance with the law and does not contradict the legal acquis of the European Union," he stated.
All of this, according to Rodríguez, "the full constitutionality of the norm and its respect for EU law".