The trial director of the Supreme Court trial, Judge Pablo Llarena, questioned this Tuesday, without quoting him, the amnesty law proposal agreed between the PSOE and the independence parties. “If the application of the law is suspended for some, while prison sentences are imposed for other citizens who engage in the same behavior, society will be confronted with doubts and privileges,” the judge said after receiving an award from from the Madrid Bar Association. The lecturer warned: “Just as a democratic society cannot assume that its members are not equal before the law, the criminal justice system cannot assume that a citizen loses his freedom when others do not deserve punishment for the same behavior. “ .” And he added: “The legal system is unique and the same for everyone.” A country’s legal system is worth as much as its judges.”
More information
It is not the first time that Llarena has publicly referred to the amnesty since it was revealed that the PSOE planned to include it in the negotiations over the investiture of Pedro Sánchez. After the lecturer made the accusation last September at a conference in Burgos that the amnesty “as if using a remote control overrides certain essential principles such as separation of powers and equality before the law”, he called for a challenge by the former Catalan President Carles Puigdemont and former city councilors Antonio Comín and Clara Ponsatí, whose defense requested that the judge be removed from the case investigating fugitives from Spanish justice for lack of impartiality.
The judge rejected this request, which, he assured, was based on a “manifestly unfounded” motivation that could actually be aimed at delaying the adoption of a new European Arrest Warrant. The order issued by Llarena recalled that it was the fifth time that attempts had been made to remove him from the case and that the challenges had also affected other members of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court and judges of the Constitutional Court.
The order also states that the conference on which the challenge was based consisted of an academic intervention in which an “analysis of the basic technical criteria for monitoring the constitutionality of a legal norm was carried out, without, however, any specific aspect of a possible amnesty law Llarena emphasized that at no point was a “procedural positioning of the trainer” anticipated, as, in his opinion, can be seen in the fragments or passages that the recusants themselves highlighted. The approach was always “academic, general and open,” as expressed in various media.
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_