The Supreme Court opposes the pardon of those convicted of the 'procés' and considers it an "unacceptable solution"

The Supreme Court opposes pardoning any of the 12 pro-independence leaders it condemned for their participation in the

procés

. The court that tried them has already issued its report, in which it unanimously refuses to grant a total or partial pardon to the secessionist leaders convicted of sedition, embezzlement or disobedience by failing to appreciate reasons of justice, equity and public utility that would justify the granting of the measure of grace. The court considers that the penalties are proportional, finds that "there is not the slightest evidence or the weakest indication of repentance" and that the arguments on which the petitions are based "blur the meaning of the pardon because they draw a collective criminal responsibility and Furthermore, they want the Government to correct the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court ”. Granting the pardon, the court concludes, would be "an unacceptable solution for the anticipated extinction of criminal responsibility."

The report of the Supreme Court, of which the president of the Criminal Chamber, Manuel Marchena has been a speaker, does not give any argument that could support the Executive's decision to grant the grace measure to any of the 12 convicted pro-independence leaders if, finally, he opts thus. Not even the nine who were attributed a crime of sedition and are serving sentences of between 9 and 13 years in prison (former vice president of the Generalitat Oriol Junqueras, former councilors Raül Romeva, Joaquim Forn, Jordi Turull, Josep Rull and Dolores Bassa; the former president of the Parliament Carme Forcadell; and the former presidents of the ANC and Òmnium Jordi Sànchez and Jordi Cuixart) or the only three who faced the trial in freedom and who were disqualified for a crime of disobedience (former councilors Santi Vila, Carles Mundó Y Beritxell Borràs).

The Government does not have in its favor either the dissenting criterion of any of the magistrates of the court who judged the

process

, since the Supreme Court's report is signed by the other five judges who made up the court (the sixth, Luciano Varela, is already retired). However, the opinion of the high court is not binding for the decision made by the Government on pardons, although it does limit the scope of the grace measure, because the law that regulates it prevents granting a total pardon with the report against the sentencing court. "The total pardon will be granted to the convicted only if there are reasons of justice, equity or public utility in their favor, in the judgment of the sentencing court," says article 11 of this rule. That is, once the Supreme Court has opposed the pardons, the Government can only grant a partial pardon, either by removing part of the penalty or by commuting it for another. The law allows both modalities,although it indicates that "preference" should be given to "the commutation of the sentence imposed in a less serious one".

Although the Supreme Court's decision is not binding, its report was mandatory, so the Government could not decide on the pardons while the court did not rule. The Supreme Court has already sent its writing to the Ministry of Justice, which is the one that now has to make a proposal, argue it, and send it to the Council of Ministers to make the final decision.

The 21-page report of the Supreme Court reviews one by one the arguments by which, according to the court, the pardons of the independence leaders cannot be protected by any of the three reasons required by law to justify this measure -justice, equity and public utility-, and would mean rewarding those who tried to “unilaterally subvert” the constitutional order and have not shown regret for it. The report concludes that the sentence imposed on a convicted person only ceases to be necessary when he has fulfilled the purpose that legitimizes its imposition, something that, according to the court, does not happen in this case. "The verification of the failure of the purposes of special prevention, appreciable without the need for further argumentative efforts, forces to reject the pardon requested in favor of the convicted", concludes the court,who insists on the idea that he already introduced in the sentence of the

You claim

that they were not condemned for their ideas. “The Chamber does not cling to already obsolete conceptions about the meaning of the re-socialization of the convicted person, especially when he does not share or identify with hegemonic social values. But this idea is not incompatible with the acceptance that a pluralistic society, inspired by democratic values, can demand through the imposition of a penalty that the breakdown of the foundations of coexistence is never the result of a unilateral decision, supported by misleading mobilization of a citizenry that is irresponsibly pushed to build a new state that only exists in the imagination of its promoters ”, they point out.

For the court, the reasons invoked to support the total or partial pardon lose any justification “when those who have been the authors of a mobilization aimed at unilaterally subverting the constitutional order, to overturn the ordinary functioning of the institutions and, in in order to impose their own conscience against the convictions of the rest of their fellow citizens ”. The report stops to analyze the lack of repentance exhibited by the majority of those convicted. "Not even by making this legal requirement more flexible and freeing its demand from the need for a feeling of contrition for the act executed, could we glimpse a will to reencounter the legal order impaired by the crime," the court warns.which emphasizes that “the message transmitted by those convicted in the exercise of the right to the last word and in their subsequent public statements is very expressive of their will to repeat the attack on the pillars of democratic coexistence, even assuming that the fight for their political ideals - of unquestionable constitutional legitimacy - would authorize citizen mobilization to proclaim the non-observance of the laws, the replacement of the head of the State and the unilateral displacement of the source of sovereignty ”.even assuming that the fight for their political ideals - of unquestionable constitutional legitimacy - would authorize citizen mobilization to proclaim the non-observance of the laws, the replacement of the head of state and the unilateral displacement of the source of sovereignty ”.even assuming that the fight for their political ideals - of unquestionable constitutional legitimacy - would authorize citizen mobilization to proclaim the non-observance of the laws, the replacement of the head of state and the unilateral displacement of the source of sovereignty ”.

The report cites Jordi Cuixart who in his response to the Chamber affirms that everything he did he would do again because he did not commit any crime. Those words are for the court “the best expression of the reasons why pardon is presented as an unacceptable solution for the anticipated extinction of criminal responsibility. In fact, they express an undemocratic attitude, in which their own conscience and the social commitment that each citizen subscribes would authorize them to pulverize the bases of coexistence, to render ineffective the resolutions issued by the Judges and Tribunals of a certain territory, to to circumvent the legal avenues of reform of a legal system and, finally, to violate the fundamental rights of those other citizens who do not agree with those principles or that individual conscience ”,the magistrates emphasize.

In his report, he recalls that the court wanted to hear the condemned, complying with the essential procedure imposed by the Pardon Law, and that most of them, except Cuixart and Vila, did not report, so that “with their silence they deprived the Chamber of the evaluation of the decisive elements to support our report and, what is more important, obliges us to a flexible interpretation that does not see in this lack a formal impediment that suggests the closure of the file ”.

Several of the clemency requests that have reached the Ministry of Justice justify the measure due to the disproportionate penalties for a crime against public order. The Chamber recalls, however, that its ruling made it clear that the crime of sedition is more than a crime against public order. "On the contrary, what the historical trial describes is an attack on public peace and the observance of laws and resolutions as the basis of coexistence within the constitutional framework," recalls the court, which therefore considers that the approach to request and granting the termination of the sentence has to be different "when what is at stake is not the preservation of public order, but the solidity of the pillars on which democratic coexistence is based."

The report pays particular attention to explaining the court's reasons for opposing the pardon of those convicted of sedition, but the Chamber also opposes granting the measure of grace for the crime of embezzlement and the three convicts who were only attributed one crime. disobedience, which does not carry prison sentences.

In this case, the court justifies its refusal in that there are no reasons that oblige the penalty to be corrected, since the fines were paid and the disqualification of one year and eight months is practically fulfilled.

Report of the Supreme Court on pardons.

If you cannot read it, click here.