Prosecutor General informs European Commission of irregularities in the process against García Ortiz

The Spanish government's controversial amnesty law, enacted under Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, has drawn sharp criticism for undermining the rule of law and targeting judges who have prosecuted Catalan independence leaders. The law, passed in response to political pressure from pro-independence groups, was designed to free those convicted over Catalonia’s 2017 referendum on independence, known as the 1-O. It marked a turning point in Spain’s political landscape, offering legal relief to former Catalan officials while simultaneously signaling a broader challenge to judicial independence. The push for amnesty began soon after the imposition of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution in late 2017, which suspended Catalonia’s autonomy following the failed referendum. At that time, several ex-advisers of the regional government were transferred to appear before the Supreme Court, and Carles Puigdemont, then president of Catalonia, fled to Belgium to avoid prosecution. In response, pro-independence activists began demanding amnesty for the ousted Catalan government, with banners appearing around Barcelona reading “Amnistia. Fem-los lliures” (“Amnesty. Free them”) alongside yellow ribbons symbolizing their new political objective. This demand was not merely about freeing prisoners or erasing charges against them, but also about launching an offensive against the judiciary itself. Proponents of the amnesty argued it would end the perceived persecution of Catalan independence supporters by Spanish courts. This stance became a central part of the political strategy of pro-independence parties such as Junts and ERC, who sought to leverage the issue to influence national politics. Despite initial resistance from the opposition, Sánchez eventually conceded to the demands, framing the amnesty as a recognition of the historical conflict between Catalonia and Spain. However, this concession did not resolve underlying tensions within his coalition. The government struggled to pass budgets and faced repeated crises in its relationship with pro-independence allies, particularly Puigdemont, who had been granted provisional permission to return to Catalonia after the European Court of Justice approved the amnesty law. The tension surrounding the amnesty remained a defining feature of Sánchez’s second term. It became a justification for both the government and pro-independence forces to attack the judiciary, which had resisted the separatist movement in 2017 and was now accused of pursuing a judicial crackdown on Sánchez and his allies. This dynamic extended beyond Catalonia, leading to what some have called the “Spanish process,” mirroring the earlier Catalan one. In 2021, the government granted a pardon to nine individuals convicted of sedition related to the 1-O, though they were not cleared of charges of misappropriation. This move was celebrated by Catalan elites as a gesture of reconciliation, but the government stopped short of granting the full amnesty demanded by Puigdemont and Oriol Junqueras. The latter explicitly rejected the idea of a pardon, stating, “They can stuff it up their backside,” shortly after being sentenced for sedition. The rejection of further amnesty measures was reinforced in January 2022 by Salvador Illa, then leader of the opposition in the Catalan Parliament, who declared, “There will be no referendum, no amnesty, nothing of the sort.” This position was echoed by Sánchez during the July 2023 elections, until unexpected results changed the political calculus. The victory of Junts gave Puigdemont the opportunity to form a new government, altering the trajectory of the amnesty debate. Meanwhile, the controversy over judicial impartiality continued to simmer. The Office of the Attorney General, led by Teresa Peramato, informed the European Commission of alleged irregularities in the trial of Álvaro García Ortiz, the former chief prosecutor of the state. These irregularities included restrictions on transparency and media access during the trial, which contrasted sharply with how other high-profile cases, including those involving Catalan independence figures, were handled. Peramato highlighted concerns raised by legal experts regarding the non-unanimous verdict against García Ortiz, noting that two judges dissented based on the insufficient evidence presented against him. She pointed to the exclusion of certain journalistic testimonies that denied García Ortiz’s role as a source, which she claimed the court found threatening. Additionally, the announcement of the conviction nearly two weeks before the official notification of the ruling was deemed illogical. During the brief deliberation period, several judges reportedly violated confidentiality by publicly expressing their support for the conviction, raising questions about the integrity of the judicial process. The president of the court, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, addressed these issues during a lecture at the Bar Association, further fueling debates over the independence of Spain’s judiciary.