The amnesty, a law approved urgently despite the notice of the Venice Commission | Spain

The parties that have negotiated the amnesty law proposal – the PSOE, Junts and ERC – affirm that the latest version of the text, approved this Thursday, includes the recommendations made by the Venice Commission, a consultative body of the Council of Europe whose draft opinion on the law was known last Friday. These new amendments, they say, have sought to adjust the rule more clearly to international law, clarify issues such as embezzlement or terrorism and link the law more closely to the independence process that motivates it, as the commission advised. The Minister of Justice, Félix Bolaños, insisted several times on the idea that the law had been improved by incorporating the recommendations of the European organization. However, the main recommendation has been ignored: the law has been processed through the emergency procedure – therefore, with less debate and without subjecting it to reports from advisory bodies -, despite the fact that the commission expressly requested not to do so, he pointed out. the need to seek greater consensus and a broader debate and stressed that the law is generating a “deep and virulent division” in Spanish society.

“A fast-track procedure is not appropriate for the adoption of amnesty laws, in view of the far-reaching consequences of this type of law and the fact that amnesty laws are often of a controversial nature,” the Commission warns. of Venice in the draft of its opinion, which in principle will be approved next week. “The means and procedures designed to approve the amnesty should be inspired by inclusion, participation, an appropriate calendar and public discussions,” he recommends, and remembers that, in general terms, “rushing” can “damage the quality of the laws.” .

“The bill has provoked virulent criticism in Spain and beyond,” states the text, which also echoes the “lively debate on the constitutionality” of the amnesty law that has occurred among “Spanish constitutional experts.” The Commission makes it clear at this point that it is not competent “to comment on the constitutionality” of the norm, although it points out that it would be “preferable” for it to be addressed, “when the time comes” through a reform of the Constitution. “The Venice Commission considers that, given that the amnesty may impact social cohesion, it should be approved by an appropriate qualified majority,” he adds at another point. In Spain, the amnesty law will be approved by an absolute majority.

The commission’s opinion is not yet final, but the draft has served the Government to maintain that it endorsed the law because it recognizes “national unity and social and political reconciliation” as its “legitimate objectives.” Furthermore, the Executive assures that it has introduced some recommendations in this Thursday’s amendments.

In the new version of the bill, explicit mention is made of the “guidelines” of the Venice Commission on the need for a “precise and detailed definition of the acts susceptible to amnesty.” In the draft report, the experts recommended “consistency in determining the acts covered by the amnesty” which, they stressed, “must be intrinsically linked to avoid arbitrariness.” Only a closer “causal link” between the events cited by the law and “certain acts of embezzlement and corruption might justify the application of the amnesty to this one,” they warned.

The Government – ​​although formally the bill is presented by the PSOE, so as not to have to submit it to the reports and procedures that a government bill would require – claims to have made “substantial amendments” to article 1 on embezzlement to make it clear that Only those crimes of embezzlement are amnestiable “as long as there was no purpose of enrichment,” reports Javier Casqueiro.

What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.

Another of the amendments approved this Thursday, relating to crimes of treason, once morest the peace or independence of the State or related to national defense, seeks, according to the Government, to respond to another of the Commission’s warnings in its report, where “underlines that the limits of international law refer to serious violations of human rights, which are not necessarily the same as serious crimes under domestic law.” Hence, the international reference is now made clear, making it clear that these crimes will not be amnestiable “as long as there has been both an effective and real threat and an effective use of force once morest the territorial integrity or political independence of Spain.” ″.

Likewise, a clarification is made to European and international laws in the definition of which acts of terrorism are excluded from the amnesty, which according to the new wording are those that “due to their purpose can be classified as such by the European Directive and , in turn, have intentionally caused serious violations of human rights, in particular those regulated in articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in international humanitarian law.

to continue reading

_