ZARZALEJOS “THE VENICE COMMISSION ENDORSES THE CRITICISM OF THE QUALITY, SUBSTANCE AND FORM OF THE AMNESTY LAW”

The PP MEP Javier Zarzalejos stressed on 18 April that the Venice Commission is very critical in its opinion of “the quality, substance and form” of the amnesty law that Pedro Sánchez has negotiated with the pro-independence parties.

It was in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where the director of Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights and Democracy of the European Commission, Julien Mousnier, and the vice-president of the Venice Commission, Marta Cartabia, appeared, and in which Javier Zarzalejos intervened.

In her speech, Cartabia presented the Venice Commission’s report on this law, which points out that the material scope of the law is very broad and somewhat diffuse and does not stipulate which crimes are covered by the amnesty, which reduces clarity and precision. The SC therefore recommends that the scope of the amnesty be better and more clearly defined.

The vice-chair of this body was also concerned that the amnesty covers acts of terrorism, acts of corruption and prevarication. “In terms of terrorism, our guiding principle should be that amnesty is only in line with international standards if serious human rights violations are excluded.

In addition, he stressed that the Spanish Constitution does not address the figure of amnesty and the enormous controversy that has arisen on this issue would make it preferable for the issue of amnesty to be explicitly stipulated in the Constitution whenever possible. It also criticises the fact that it has been approved by an emergency procedure and recommends that a law of this nature be approved by a qualified majority.

In response to the Venice Commission, PP MEP Javier Zarzalejos stressed that the Venice Commission’s opinion is very critical “of the quality, substance and form of the proposed amnesty law”.

“The Venice Commission states that amnesty laws must meet the same requirements as laws with criminal content. However, neither the absolutely disproportionate temporal scope nor the weak connection between the conducts that are intended to be amnestied, from the so-called independence process to the unconstitutional referendum, support this requirement”, he continued.

As for the separation of powers, Zarzalejos pointed out that in the opinion of the PP this is not being complied with, and that “judges should be able to raise questions of constitutionality with suspensive effect and freely before the Court of Justice of the European Union”.