Eight members of the General Council of the Judiciary have requested the president Vicente Guilarte to hold an extraordinary Plenary session to pronounce on the amnesty for the promoters and participants in the ‘process’.

The councilors Carmen Llombart, José Antonio Ballestero, Francisco Gerardo Martínez-Tristán, Juan Manuel Fernández, Juan Martínez Moya, José María Macías, Nuria Díaz Abad and María Ángeles Carmona, all appointed at the proposal of the Popular Party, have requested that the Plenary Session be held to debate an institutional declaration where the amnesty is described as a measure with effects of “degradation” for the country and “if not abolition of the rule of law in Spain.”

The aforementioned institutional declaration maintains that “the General Council of the Judiciary, exercising and reaffirming its constitutional functions for the defense of the full validity of the Constitution, the rule of law and the integrity of jurisdictional power” has been “observing with growing concern the statements by members of some minority political parties, some of them with government responsibilities, regarding the possible amnesty for crimes committed on the occasion of the episodes that occurred on October 1, 2017, as well as those also committed previously for its preparation, including corruption crimes”.

Likewise, he adds that the acting President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, stated last Saturday, October 28, that “he has effectively agreed on an amnesty law with political parties that includes, among others, the one led by a fugitive from justice who will personally benefit from the measure”, in reference to the former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont, and they add that the head of the Executive stressed that “the measure will be adopted in the interest of Spain”.

The members of the conservative sector affirm that “the statement by the acting President of the Government justifies the General Council of the Judiciary issuing its opinion through an institutional declaration, all the more so since it has also been made public that, despite the fact that the Government of Spain presents itself as its promoter, the future amnesty law will be processed as a bill, which will once again circumvent the advisory function of this Council in aspects in which the Organic Law of the Judiciary requires its intervention.

On the other hand, the members emphasize that “it is not compatible with the principle of the rule of law proclaimed by article 1 of our Constitution, and not even with the principle of responsibility of public powers referred to in article 9.3, which political leaders are exempt from answering for their crimes before the courts, whatever the nature of their crimes, so that an aspiring President of the Government can obtain the personal and political benefit of preventing the government of other political forces or, expressed by its reverse, to be able to remain in the Government”. “This means degrading and turning our rule of law into an object of marketing at the service of the personal interest that seeks to present itself, from the rejection of political pluralism, as the interest of Spain,” they add.

Likewise, they affirm that amnesty to the leaders of the process “means generating a caste that is legally irresponsible and unpunished for its crimes which, while not being justified by any constitutionally legitimate purpose, means contravening not only the principle of responsibility of public powers, but even the most basic principle of equality of citizens before the law proclaimed in article 14 of the Constitution”. Finally, the members add that the imminent Amnesty Law “violates the independence of the courts in its most basic aspect: if independence is the necessary instrument so that the courts can act with neutrality and guarantee, through the effectiveness of their decisions, the principle of legal certainty, one cannot speak of independence or legal certainty when political forces use the laws for their benefit to prevent the action of the courts”.

President Guilarte has a period of three days from the registration of the petition to convene the plenary session.