The Amnesty Law was the key to the start of this legislature, which ends with the endorsement of the Court of Justice of the EU. That law deepened the confrontation between part of the judiciary and Sánchez’s Government. Now, Minister Félix Bolaños claims the effects of the amnesty and demands that it be fully applied as soon as possible.
Read more The duel between Shakira and Madonna will compete with that of Messi and Yamal
Is the CJEU’s endorsement of the amnesty law a victory for the Government or for the independence movement?
It is a victory for Catalonia and Spain. It has managed to bring the conflict that should not have left politics back to politics. And for us to move from the unbearable tension of the procés to speaking normally among people who think differently. It is true that it has not yet been fully applied and that is the last stage to be completed.
The Government dismissed it until it needed Junts’ vote
For a time, opinions about the amnesty were given without having studied it in depth. I was the first. When we studied it, we saw that it was a logical tool to overcome the confrontation because it avoided criminal charges against hundreds of people at once. Reconciliation could not have been guaranteed with more than 400 people going to prison. A team of experts in constitutional, European, administrative, accounting, procedural law… did a great job and the law is constitutional and in line with European values.
The fact that the Supreme Court sought an argument not to apply it, is that disloyalty of the judiciary to the legislature?
My interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision not to apply the amnesty law is critical. Their decision was debated within the Supreme Court itself with dissenting opinions. The law is very clear in letter and spirit: it aims to amnesty all the protagonists of the independence process, those who wanted independence and those who opposed it. We are ready to start from scratch, with all parties doing politics on equal terms.
Parliamentary support
“I ask Junts to be part of the majority to reform justice”
Do you think the two-year blockage of the law’s application is due to political reasons?
I believe there could have been an interpretation more in line with the law and its spirit and that today it would already be fully applied. It has not been so, but the Rule of Law has its mechanisms and other instances such as the Constitutional Court, the European Court. I believe it will be done as soon as possible and a new stage of agreements among different groups will open in Catalonia. There is no other option. No one can imagine that a political conflict ends up humiliating or crushing the other side.
Would the Supreme Court be acting unlawfully if it does not apply the law soon?
I aspire for it to be applied with the greatest agility. The position of the Constitutional Court has been made clear, which has issued more than twenty rulings in response to appeals endorsing the law. And the position of the European Court has been made clear, which says that amnesty is a tool to overcome political and social tensions. I do not want to speculate on what might happen if it is not applied. I understand it will be applied as soon as possible.
Recent polls reveal that the independence movement would be larger than ever in the Parliament of Catalonia, although ideologically they cannot add up. How do you analyze this?
There is undoubtedly a significant independence force in Catalonia and the Government does not intend to convince anyone to think differently, but to do politics within the law and seeking agreements with those who think differently. What alternative does the right and far-right propose? They brought out thousands of people against the amnesty law, scaring and lying. What do they want? That there is always conflict? The PP has internalized a very dangerous tradition of profiting by pitting Catalonia against the rest of Spain. We seek that more and more Catalans feel comfortable in a common project called Spain.
Independence movement rises, according to polls
“We seek that more and more Catalans feel comfortable in a common project called Spain”
The amnesty was the result of a pact between PSOE and Junts that also aimed to resolve the conflict between Catalonia and Spain with an international mediator. That has gone nowhere. Should it be resumed?
The amnesty is the result of a pact with Junts and with Esquerra Republicana and also with other non-Catalan forces. Sitting down with those who think differently is always positive. If that dialogue has not continued, it is not because the Socialist Party got up from the table. Junts did because they accuse us of breaches. The European ruling shows that everything we agreed with Junts, and with any other force, we work to carry out. Everything in our hands is fulfilled. What depends on third parties we are working hard to achieve.
If the amnesty were applied in autumn, do you think there is a chance Junts will approve the budgets?
They must answer that. We have just approved a dependency reform with funding of more than 6 billion. In fact, we won 86% of the votes in Congress. And the economy is doing better than ever. Junts and other forces would do well to sit down and work so that citizens see that politics is useful.
Debate on ‘lawfare’
“The cases affecting the president’s family are very debatable, to be polite”
If the amnesty is applied, do you think it is easier to convince Junts to approve the justice reform bills you propose?
We are addressing the greatest transformation of justice since the transition. We have eliminated single-judge courts, created 500 judge positions and 200 prosecutor positions. We have pending the Justice Reform Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, which finally transfers the investigation to the Public Prosecutor’s Office as in the entire Western world. My idea is to achieve a parliamentary majority for them to pass. Junts will have to explain their position, but I ask them to be part of the majority to reform justice. Nothing else would be understood.
Read more The World Cup seen from beyond
In that pact between PSOE and Junts that gave rise to the amnesty, lawfare was mentioned. But you also resisted talking about lawfare and now you do, another change of opinion?
You have to read the agreement. That word appeared, but it was not assumed that lawfare existed. We are living a moment of many judicial cases with undeniable protagonism, but it would not be right to apply the same categorization and adjectives to all. Each case has its characteristics. There have been some judicial rulings difficult to understand and this has harmed specific people who do not deserve it and also the name of justice, as reflected in the La Vanguardia survey. Part of society thinks that, faced with incomprehensible judicial rulings, there should be an effective response from the judicial system of appeals and guarantees. And since they do not see it, that affects the good name of justice.
Do you think that in the judicial world there are those who follow Aznar’s directive of “whoever can, do it”?
I think there are judicial rulings that one cannot explain. We must not forget that there is a second pressure on the judicial system. There are far-right people who dedicate themselves every day to filing complaints against progressives just for being so and against their relatives. There are hundreds of complaints to intimidate and coerce us. The vast majority are not admitted, but occasionally some are processed with press cuts, violating the Supreme Court doctrine, and those complaints pressure the judiciary. Popular accusations today in Spain are a nest of ultras, making a spurious use of a legal figure that is not meant to persecute people for having progressive ideas, and that is why we regulate it in our Criminal Procedure Law project.
“The CGPJ must know that defending the indefensible harms justice”
If it is about distinguishing between cases, I understand you consider those affecting the president’s family debatable
They are cases that are indeed very debatable to use very polite terminology. The Badajoz ruling [on David Sánchez] is very debatable. It is true that there is an appeal and the guarantee system must do its job, but it is very disputed how a criminal conviction could be reached for a matter that not even administratively was the assignment of that position appealed. In the Begoña Gómez case there have also been very debatable judicial rulings. There will not be many cases in the history of Spanish justice that have had such a high number of reversals: 16 from provincial justice and 6 complaints before the General Council of the Judiciary for irregularities by the investigating judge and he has filed a dozen lawsuits against journalists, commentators and politicians to curb their right to freedom of expression and so they do not say, as I say without offending anyone, that his investigation will not go down in the history of legal cleanliness.
And would you also include the case affecting Zapatero there?
Zapatero’s case is at a very preliminary stage, and at this time there is no clear and direct incriminating evidence against him. President Zapatero has asked us for time to clarify everything and has asked for trust and deserves both.
But you won’t tell me that a Supreme Court, a National Court, the Madrid Provincial Court, the Badajoz one… many judges agree all for political reasons
Disagreeing with judicial rulings does not mean we want to generalize it. The vast majority of judges do their work with impartiality, rigor and professionalism. And that does not mean the Government agrees with all judicial rulings. You have just made a catalog of some we disagree with and we have said it respectfully. That is democracy.
Future investigations
“There is absolutely nothing to carry out such actions” [imputing the president and PSOE]
Doesn’t that contribute to discrediting the good name of justice?
I believe that citizens’ opinion of justice does not come from any politician making a public statement. I think there are deeper reasons and the judiciary must also be aware that sometimes defending the indefensible harms the good name of justice, as has happened with some statements [from the CGPJ].
Do you think there is excessive judicial corporatism?
Misunderstood corporatism is harmful. When you defend the indefensible just because the person who did it is part of your body, you are not sending a good message to citizens, who want measures to be taken to correct irregular behavior. There are certain people who believe that this misunderstood corporatism is good when it really damages the image of justice.
Do you fear an indictment of the Prime Minister and PSOE?
There is absolutely nothing to carry out such actions. The PSOE has acted forcefully when it had solid evidence of irregular behavior without prejudging anything. And there are other cases where there is practically nothing and, therefore, all respect for judicial investigations, but we are very calm in the Socialist Party.
Are you calm about the Leire case?
What we are learning is a bit confusing. I am not sure if there is a crime or not. Justice will determine that. What I do say firmly is that it did not affect State institutions. The UCO, the prosecution or the judiciary were able to work without interference.
Finally, do you think this accumulation of judicial cases and others that may come could make the president change plans to complete the legislature?
The president says in public the same as in private, that the legislature will be completed. I know there is a lot of noise, sometimes with reason and other times with the aim of avoiding talking about what this government does, which is good for citizens and, therefore, in 2027, we will win the elections.
Read more Spain and Argentina, cultural powers
