SPAIN’S Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit by a right-wing group accusing Pedro Sanchez, the Spanish president, of breaching his duty by pardoning nine Catalan independence leaders who had been jailed for their part in the 2017 Catalan indyref.
The case was brought by Derecha Liberal Espanola (Spanish Liberal Right) against Sanchez and Juan Carlos Campos, then justice minister.
Judges rejected it on the grounds that “whoever with powers exercised the pardons as provided by law”, recognition by the judiciary that the Spanish government has the right to release prisoners, ruling out its consideration as a breach of official duty – a criminal charge that could result in a prison sentence.
“The complainants themselves recognise the legitimacy of the Spanish government to grant total or partial pardons to those convicted by criminal courts and that the judging court and public prosecutor have issued their mandatory reports before the decision,” read the court’s ruling.
According to the minor party, the pardons were “a bargaining chip with Catalan pro-independence groups”.
Spain’s three main unionist, right-wing parties, People’s, Ciudadanos and Vox, all filed appeals against the pardons after they were announced.
Judges have not yet considered these, but the Supreme Court said that would fall under the remit of its administrative court.
Nine pro-independence politicians and activists were jailed for between nine and 13 years for their role in the indyref and subsequent declaration of independence, and served more than three years before Sanchez’s cabinet pardoned them in June.
The Supreme Court convicted the nine and the pardons could be challenged there, but it “is not so easy”, according to an academic at Barcelona University.
Jordi Nieva-Fenoll earlier told Catalan News the court can review them because in the past they have considered themselves to have the powers to do so. However, questions remained about who can mount the challenge and on what grounds.
Nieva-Fenoll said: “To challenge such a decision legally you have to be affected by the decision. And who is affected by the decision of the pardons?
“Many have thought of political parties, but why is it legitimate for them to challenge the decision? There is no ground. And any other person in society? Why? There is no ground either.”
He added: “The only reason so far where the Supreme Court has declared a pardon void is that it is arbitrary, against reason.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel