The amnesty law for those prosecuted and convicted through the process is now in effect after publication in the BOE. The standard now enters the complex scenario of its application by the judges who, as a preparatory step, have begun asking the parties to comment on its impact in each case. This move has already had replicas in the Public Prosecutor's Office, where the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, demanded that prosecutors participating in the trial process prepare a procedural report without “political considerations” on the law, sources consulted said.
The request took place in the context of a meeting with prosecutors Javier Zaragoza and Jaime Moreno, in charge of promoting public accusation in the two major cases opened at the Supreme Court: that of those who have already been convicted and that of those who have escaped. such as former president Carles Puigdemont. The meeting took place after the Supreme Court gave the parties five days to take a position on the application of the law.
The attorney general's request came after both told him they had already prepared a report on the application of the amnesty. In that document, released just minutes after the standard had been approved by Congress and had not yet entered into force, they opposed the application of the amnesty law for the crime of embezzlement. And they included considerations that went beyond the legal field, with allusions to, among other things, the people's supposed rejection of the “broad majority” of the law or the PSOE's “abrupt and unexpected change of opinion” on this issue . That is why the Attorney General has demanded a new “procedural report”, not “general” as it was, and which only responds to what the Supreme Court demands, the same sources say.
In that text, the trial plaintiffs also put in writing their contention that the embezzlement of funds for the holding of the 1-O referendum does not fall within the exclusions provided for by the law, which stipulates that crimes of embezzlement 'shall always be amnestied granted'. that there was no enrichment.” Thus they defended Puigdemont, Junqueras and the rest of those convicted or prosecuted for this crime They were enriched in a “personal” way by giving public money to third parties to pay for those consultations.
The sources consulted emphasize that García Ortiz has not given these prosecutors “any indication” about the new report. So far, the attorney general has declined to comment on the amnesty, saying it would constitute “interference” in the legislature. But those around them confirm that their position in principle is that the independence leaders did not personally enrich themselves and so this behavior would be protected by the norm.
This likely disparity in the criteria anticipates a possible conflict within the Public Prosecutor's Office, which could lead to prosecutors triggering Article 27 of the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office. This article provides for the meeting of the Board of Prosecutors when a subordinate disagrees with the decision of a superior. During the meeting, according to the legal sources consulted, the possibility of invoking this procedure was raised. However, the vote is not binding on the boss, who can maintain his discretion. And in any case, the judges will have the final say on the application or the amnesty.'