El Supremo amnistía a Junqueras, Romeva, Turull y Bassa, los dirigentes del 'procés' condenados por malversación

The Supreme Court has decided to apply the amnesty law to former Catalan Vice-President and ERC leader Oriol Junqueras, and the ex-councillors Raül Romeva, Jordi Turull, and Dolors Bassa, following two years since its enactment and the Constitutional Court's approval of forgiveness for embezzlement, for which the four were convicted.

The Penal Division, which judged the process, took this step in a 12-page opinion, as ordered by the Constitutional Court to amnesty the leaders implicated for embezzlement, both the convicted and those being prosecuted: former President and leader of Junts, Carles Puigdemont, and ex-councillors Toni Comín and Lluís Puig, who were not tried because they fled justice after the illegal referendum of 2017.

With Manuel Marchena, the magistrate who presided over the trial of the independentist process, as the author, the Supreme Court declares the criminal liability of the four leaders extinguished in an opinion co-signed by the current president of Division II, Andrés Martínez Arrieta, and magistrate Antonio del Moral, who were part of that court.

The magistrates amnesty them by assuming in their integrity the substantive part of the Constitutional Court's sentence that granted the remedy to Bassa and ordered the Supreme Court to apply the grace measure to them. This extinguishes the disqualification imposed on Junqueras, 13 years, and Romeva, Turull, and Bassa, 12 years, respectively.

And after they were pardoned by the Government for the prison sentences. The Supreme Court notes that the request to remove criminal records arising from the 2019 sentence requested by the four ex-members of the Catalan Government and their lawyers, plus Meritxell Borrás, Carme Forcadell, and Josep Rull, is submitted to the Ministry of Justice to act accordingly.

However, the magistrates criticize the unnecessary grandiloquence of the Constitutional Court, revealing its desire to embellish an invasive reasoning of the juridical scope of the Supreme Court.