The General Council of the Judiciary, plus all the associations of judges and prosecutors in the country, have shown this Thursday their absolute repudiation of the concept of lawfare approved in the pact signed between the Socialist Party of Pedro Sánchez and the fugitive and leader of Junts, Carles Puigdemont.

The Permanent Commission of the Council has issued a statement tonight showing its direct rejection of the recognition of lawfare attributed to judges in our country. “It potentially implies subjecting to parliamentary review decisions framed in the exclusivity of the scope of jurisdiction of our courts that, on the other hand, we understand were produced in a manner fully in accordance with the legality then judged. For all this, the initiative indicated would imply an inadmissible interference in the judicial independence and a flagrant attack on the separation of powers. The continuity of such a parliamentary initiative, if it materializes, would determine our most frontal opposition through the legally established channels,” warn the members of the CGPJ.

Likewise, from the governing body of the judges they express the “real and not merely nominal support to all the bodies of the Judiciary on the occasion of the future actions that they may carry out within the framework of legality at all times in force, ultimate guarantee of the rights and freedoms of all our citizens.

On the other hand, the four judicial associations, the Professional Association of the Judiciary, the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association, the Association of Judges for Democracy and the Independent Judicial Forum, signed a joint statement this Thursday in which they show their “rejection” of the references to the ” lawfare or judicialization of politics” that appears in the agreement signed between the PSOE and Junts.

In the statement, the judges in unison denounce that “the text of the agreement reached contains explicit references to the possibility of developing investigative commissions in parliamentary headquarters in order to determine the presence of situations of judicialization of politics, with the consequences that, in their case could give rise to liability actions or legislative modifications” and add that “this could mean, in practice, subjecting judicial procedures and decisions to parliamentary review with evident interference in judicial independence and bankruptcy of the separation of powers.”

Likewise, all the associations of magistrates emphasize that “judges must be subject only to the rule of law, since this is expressly established by article 117.1 of the Constitution. These expressions, insofar as they reveal any distrust in the functioning of the Judiciary, are not acceptable.”

The members of the Judicial Career emphasize that “the Judicial Branch in Spain is independent, does not act under political pressure and has a system of jurisdictional guarantees that eliminates the risk that is pointed out.”

On the other hand, all prosecutors’ associations have also spoken out against the lawfare recognized in the pact.

From the majority group, the Association of Prosecutors pointed out that “the use of the term judicial war (lawfare) used in the agreement is inadmissible, as it is a concept that does not fit into our current constitutional order.”

For its part, the Progressive Union of Prosecutors maintained that “the possible creation of investigative commissions in parliamentary headquarters on judicial proceedings is inadmissible since it would absolutely pervert the constitutional system of separation of powers.”

On the other hand, the Professional and Independent Association of Prosecutors argued that the pact is an “unusual attack on the independence of the Judiciary” and emphasized that the attorney general, Álvaro García Ortiz, “remains silent regarding the amnesty.” and the attacks on the work of the Prosecutor’s Office will not mean that the new Government will not renew his position.

Given the enormous unrest generated among judges and prosecutors, the PSOE released a statement late this Thursday where it stated that “Parliament is not going to carry out, in any case, a review of any sentence or judicial resolution. Parliament will not supervise the judges. That is not what was agreed nor could it have been agreed.”