Magistrates insist that the crimes did not affect specific people, but were directed “against society”.
Supreme Court believes that appeals against pardon for convicts process To prevent the existence of a “zone immune from jurisdictional control”.
This is one of the arguments on record that quashes the preliminary decision of the High Court not to examine the appeals due to the lack of legitimacy of the appellants to challenge the decision of the Government. That first refusal was too strong (three votes to two) and has been reversed with changes to the composition of the Chamber: three votes in favor of pardons and two individual votes in favor of revision.
The Chamber’s argument, released this Thursday, in addition to avoiding that locus of immunity, includes guarantees of “the maximum guarantee of the right to effective judicial protection” of the appellants: Vox, the Catalan deputy of the Popular Party, CS and From PP, Catalonia Enrique Milo and the Catalan Civic coexist and the former representative of the government in the Pro Patrimonium Siegena and Jerusalem federations. Only the latter has been denied validity.
Magistrates emphasize that the legitimacy of appeals, on which the magistrate’s analysis has focused at this stage, “is one of the deepest concepts of procedural law, which, as has been said, is the more confusing Which is written about.
They say that there are no generalized solutions and that each specific situation must be studied. It added that the pardon in this case is “for a very unique offence: against society, which protects collective legal property”, which further complicates the task of the Wise.
Faced with so much uncertainty, the court concluded that the allegations of appeal must be thoroughly investigated, without the appellants being at the initial black stage for legalization is not possible. If they do not have it, it will be established in the sentence, but only after thoroughly studying the case.
Judgment is signed by magistrates Wenceslao Francisco Olea, fernando roman I ins huerta, The first two presented a dissenting vote for the first inadmissibility of the appeal. Magistrates joined the fifth contentious section in time to study review appeals against disqualifications.
The two magistrates have presented a dissenting opinion in which they support the thesis that the majority in principle held that the appellants were not affected by the pardon decision, and were therefore not entitled to appeal them.
The two magistrates disapprove that their criterion presumes to produce “immunity”, as it follows what it seeks to establish in the laws. “It is the legislator who assesses the scope of public, common, collective and institutional interests, determines and defines the legitimacy to defend them.”
according to the norms of