The orders with which the Supreme Court denied legitimacy to the parties, citizens and groups that challenged the pardons of the ‘procés’ in order to question them were not yet known in their entirety, andThe Contentious-Administrative Chamber was already preparing to rule on them for the second time, through the resources you expect to receive before next Friday. Appeals that are usually a mere formality, but in this case have their own condition, caused by the change in composition of the sections of the Third Chamber every six months so that one of its judges becomes part of the admission section.

Appeals or appeals are resolved by the same Chamber that issued the contested decision, which means that they usually have very little chance of succeeding. So scarce that a chief prosecutor of the National High Court used to compare the usefulness of the appeal in criminal matters with that of rain in the sea.

However, in this case, in which the lack of legitimation of the appellants was adopted by a slim majority of three to two, there are those who are harboring hope that the situation can turn around. The expectation has been opened because one of the magistrates who voted with the majority, Angels Huethas joined the admission room and instead has entered Ines Huertato which a conservative sensibility is attributed, because, among other circumstances, it was one of those that tried to raise to the plenary session of the Third Chamber, to facilitate the success of the challenges presented against the appointment of Dolores Delgado as attorney general.

23-F against ‘procés’

Sources from the high court tell EL PERIÓDICO that Huet joined the admissions room the day after the deliberations on the appeals concluded, and that Huerta has taken on his presentations, so it will be the latter who will participate in the deliberation of the appeals. second challenges, which will be filed against the lack of legitimacy to challenge the pardons for Vox, PP, deputies of this party and Citizens, the former Government delegate Enric Millo, Civic Coexistence and Propatrimonium Sijena and Jerusalem.

All will rely on the votes of the magistrates Wenceslao Olea and Fernando Romanwho consider that the lack of legitimacy of the first five is not so clear as to reject it at this time, so it could only be done, where appropriate, at the end of the procedure, in the sentence itself.

In their writings they point out that Given the seriousness of the crimes committed by the leaders of the ‘procés’affected “each and every one of the Spanish citizens“, so that “There is no denying the possibility that there are subjects who may have had their rights or interests affected in a relevant manner and who, however, have not participated in the criminal process.nor have they been alluded to by name in the conviction”, which is why they are entitled to challenge the pardons.

Related news

The sources consulted suggest that this seriousness will have to be assessed in the deliberations, which some magistrates even consider superior to that which the pardons of 23-F had in their day. It is based on the fact that when these occurred it did not seem possible that there would be another coup d’état and, on the other hand, according to the manifestations of the pardoned themselves, a second pro-independence ‘procés’ seems feasible.

In the minds of the magistrates, the image problem that it will mean for the Supreme Court that in January one thing is resolved and a couple of months later the opposite will also weigh, depending on which magistrates make up a Chamber. To the replacement of Huet by Huerta, in addition, it may also be necessary to add that if the deliberation of the resources takes place after April 15 nor will the current president of the Section participate in it, Segundo Menendezwho is retiring and also voted against the legitimation of the appellants, because he understood that none was a victim or directly harmed by the crimes committed by those pardoned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.