The Attorney General of the State, Alvaro Garcia Ortizhas signed a decree ordering the four prosecutors who intervened in the trial against processesJavier Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal, Jaime Moreno and Fidel Cadena, that support the application of the amnesty law to key pro-independence leaders who have been persecuted, including former President Carles Puigdemont, ERC General Secretary Marta Rovira; and Republican President Oriol Junqueras.

The four prosecutors sent reports to García Ortiz opposing the application of the amnesty law to the independence leaders, realizing that the crime of embezzlement for which they had been convicted or charged did not fall within the scope of the law. In the same report they defended the presentation of preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union or questions about unconstitutionality to the Constitutional Court.

However, García Ortiz ignores these proposals and orders the four prosecutors to report to the Supreme Court that “it is appropriate to declare an amnesty for all the conduct that was and is the subject of said proceedings, and to lift the precautionary measures pending with respect to some of the defendants.”

Judge Pablo Llarena, who is investigating the case against Puigdemont, who has fled justice since 2017, ruled the same day the publication of the law in the Government Gazette will not lift the precautionary measures holding back the former Catalan president for the time being return to Spain and ask all parties in the trial, including the Public Prosecution Service, for their opinion on whether the amnesty law applies to someone who is being investigated by the legal system for embezzlement.

The four accusers of the processes They announced last Tuesday that they would withdraw from the case if the attorney general ordered them to support the application of the law to the indicted pro-independence leaders. García Ortiz has responded, visibly upset by the behavior of these prosecutors: “Attention must be drawn to the fact that one anticipates the presentation of a discrepancy (Article 27 of the Organic Statute of the Public Prosecutor's Office) without prior knowledge of its content of the Public Prosecution Service. order or instruction or the arguments on which it is based.”

What has the most influence is what comes closest. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.

The Public Prosecution Service carries out its duties through its own bodies, in accordance with the principles of unity of action and hierarchical dependence. If prosecutors resist their bosses' orders, they can request that a board of prosecutors be convened in the chamber to discuss the case, although the final decision always rests with the attorney general.

In his writing, García Ortiz bundles criticism and disapproval of the “draft reports” written by the four prosecutors of the processes.

“Inadmissible messages that endanger the image of neutrality of the Public Prosecution Service.” The Attorney General accuses the four prosecutors that “the draft reports presented make abundant use of arguments that go beyond the strictly legal level, which endanger the necessary image of neutrality and impartiality of the Public Prosecution Service and which are therefore completely inappropriate.”

“The proposals do not respect the current instructions.” The draft reports of the prosecutors of the processes “They do not respect the provisions of the 2012 Public Prosecutor's Instruction on the criteria to be followed when dealing with unconstitutionality issues,” writes Álvaro Ortiz. The four prosecutors intend to “advance separate issues of unconstitutionality without first seeking the opinion of the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Constitutional Court or the consent of the Public Prosecutor's Office, as provided for in two circulars and an instruction.”

“Analysis of alleged unconstitutionality apparently incomplete.” “The analysis carried out regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of Organic Law 1/2024 is clearly incomplete, as it does not exhaustively include the case law of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the case law of the European Court is investigating. of human rights. It also does not look at the treatment that amnesty currently receives in our legal system as a whole. Consequently, the arguments on this issue in the draft reports are insufficient to question the constitutionality of the standard.”

“Interpretation contrary to what the law says.” The four accusers of the processes They understand that the amnesty law cannot be applied to pro-independence leaders convicted or accused of embezzlement, as their actions did generate profit under the Supreme Court's interpretation. “The interpretation given regarding the impossibility of understanding that the crime of embezzlement attributed to the convicts and accused falls within its scope is contrary to the grain of the art. 1.1.a) and b) and 1.4 of the standard. “This interpretation contradicts the very literal meaning of the regulations outlined.”

These regulations textually state the following: “In any case, acts classified as crimes of usurpation of public functions or embezzlement will be understood in this case only if they are aimed at financing, defraying or facilitating the execution of one of the described behaviors. in the first paragraph of this letter, directly or through a public or private entity, provided that there has been no purpose of enrichment, as well as any other act classified as a crime that has the same purpose. The use of public funds for the purposes provided for in sections a) and b) will not be considered enrichment if, regardless of its adaptation to the legal system, it is not intended to obtain a personal advantage of a pecuniary nature.

In addition, the Attorney General also criticizes the report of the four Supreme Court prosecutors because it “represents a manifestly incomplete analysis of the concepts of 'financial interests' of the European Union and 'damage to the financial interests' of the Union, as it does not exhaustively analyze the case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the treatment that the European legal system offers to these concepts. Analysis that also makes it possible to reach a conclusion that is contrary to the conclusion formulated in the draft reports presented.”

“Consequently,” García Ortiz added, “I must conclude that the arguments on this issue contained in the draft reports are insufficient to cast doubt on the possibility of considering as amnesty the crimes of embezzlement covered by the proceedings.”

In an attached 114-page document, the Attorney General breaks down each of the sections appearing in the decree: on the constitutionality of the amnesty law, on the amnesty crime of embezzlement, on not harming the EU's financial interests, or on the political assessments in a report from the Public Prosecution Service – to substantiate their criticism of the four prosecutors' report.