The response times of the parties, the request for evidence and the holding of a hearing will delay the ruling in the Supreme Court on the prisoners of the ‘procés’
The Supreme Court has already taken the first steps to resolve the legality of the partial pardons granted by the Government to the Catalan independence leaders sentenced to prison for the ‘procés’. A year after approving the decrees that released the nine politicians in exchange for not committing a crime again for a period of up to six years, the Contentious-Administrative Chamber works with a time horizon of several months -at least until autumn- to have their resolutions ready on the reconsideration appeals admitted on May 24.
This decision of the Fifth Section came after revoking the previous rejection of the body itself that saw the writings, which did not admit its processing last January due to the lack of active legitimacy of the appellants to challenge the decrees of the Executive, including the PP, Vox or three Citizens deputies.
Then, the court formed by five magistrates resolved by three votes to two. Despite the fact that the decision seemed definitive to the rest of the Government, a change of two magistrates in this section in the following months meant a variation of the majorities and the admission of the appeals for replacement. It is a figure that allows you to ask the Chamber that adopted a decision to reconsider it, but it almost never has a path because it implies that the judges retract what they themselves ruled.
This change of criteria does not necessarily imply that the challenges will prosper and the court will annul the clemency measures that freed Oriol Junqueras and the rest of those sentenced to prison for a crime of sedition and/or embezzlement. public, but the mere deliberation of the same gives oxygen to the detractors and resurrects an issue that already seemed overcome.
Well, the first step in the processing of appeals against pardons has to do with the 20-day period given to the State Attorney, on behalf of the Executive, to answer their admission, one by one. Then the parties have a term defined by law to ask the court to hold the evidence that they had included in their claims. And, ultimately, the Chamber must set the appointment of a hearing before passing sentence.
In its proceedings, the court has already advanced that the reason under examination would be the legitimacy of the appellants, even more so when it comes to partial pardons for “very unique” crimes against society, which protect non-individual collective legal rights. In addition, he justified the “complex profiles” that political parties represent as an interested party and the “repeated discrepancy” within the section on this figure. In any case, there is the possibility that the Chamber enters into the background and also deliberates on the legality of the Government’s decrees, according to Supreme Court sources.
#sentence #pardons #autumn