The State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, has signed a decree ordering the four prosecutors involved in the trial of the procés, Javier Zaragoza, Consuelo Madrigal, Jaime Moreno and Fidel Cadena, to support the application of the amnesty law to the main Catalan separatist leaders, including former president Carles Puigdemont, ERC secretary general Marta Rovira, and former republican president Oriol Junqueras. The four prosecutors had sent reports to García Ortiz opposing the application of the amnesty law to the separatist leaders as they believed the embezzlement charges they faced were not covered by the law. They also recommended presenting prejudicial questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union or questions of unconstitutionality to the Constitutional Court. However, García Ortiz disregards these proposals and orders the four prosecutors to inform the Supreme Court that “it is appropriate to declare the actions that were and are the subject of these proceedings amnestied, as well as to lift the precautionary measures pending against some of the accused.”
After receiving this instruction, prosecutor Javier Zaragoza invoked Article 27 on behalf of the four prosecutors, expressing their disagreement with the order. García Ortiz then called a meeting with prosecutors to discuss the matter further. Judge Pablo Llarena, who is handling the case against Puigdemont, decided not to lift the precautionary measures preventing the former Catalan president from returning to Spain and sought opinions from all parties involved in the process, including the prosecution, regarding the application of the amnesty law to someone being investigated for embezzlement.
The four prosecutors of the procés announced that they would step aside from the case if the State Attorney General ordered them to support the application of the law to the separatist leaders. García Ortiz responded sternly to their behavior, stating that they should not anticipate a disagreement without knowing the content of the order or its arguments. The State Attorney General criticized the prosecutors’ draft reports for compromising the neutrality and impartiality of the prosecution and not respecting the guidelines set forth in previous instructions regarding the handling of questions of unconstitutionality.
According to García Ortiz, the analysis of potential unconstitutionality in the prosecutors’ reports was insufficient and incomplete as it did not thoroughly examine relevant case law, including European Union jurisprudence. The prosecutors’ interpretation that embezzlement charges against the separatist leaders could not be amnestied was deemed contrary to the law’s explicit provisions. García Ortiz also criticized their analysis of EU financial interests and harm to those interests, stating that it did not consider relevant jurisprudence. In a 114-page document, the State Attorney General detailed the criticism of the prosecutors’ reports on the constitutionality of the amnesty law, amnestied embezzlement charges, lack of harm to EU financial interests, and political assessments in a prosecution report.
The prosecutors have the option to request a meeting of senior prosecutors to discuss their disagreement with the orders, as occurred in this case. However, the final decision ultimately rests with the State Attorney General, who has the authority to instruct prosecutors on how to proceed in legal matters. This dispute raises questions about the application of the amnesty law to key Catalan separatist leaders and highlights the complexities and challenges faced by prosecutors in sensitive political cases. The outcome of this situation will have significant implications for the legal proceedings against the separatist leaders and the broader political landscape in Spain.
