The Ombudsman, Angel Gabilondo, has decided not to challenge the amnesty law, as communicated by the body on Wednesday citing both “institutional reasons” and substantive considerations about the amnesty. The Ombudsman explains that the institutional reasons have to do with the fact that both the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justice of Catalonia have raised questions of unconstitutionality, expressing their doubts to the Constitutional Court about the law that erases crimes related to the Catalan independence process. He maintains that his position is to “step away from the cases in which there has been judicial intervention.” Gabilondo also argues that in this decision, “consideration has been given to respecting the citizens who have been amnestied by judges so far in application of this law.” In addition, the Ombudsman has analyzed the amnesty law and emphasizes that “it can be indicated that in the analysis of proportionality (of the case) there are reasons, both historical, comparative law, jurisprudential, and conceptual, that would contradict the alleged arbitrariness of the norm”, which means that he has arrived at conclusions opposite to those of the Supreme Court to formulate his question of unconstitutionality.
One of the main reasons behind the Ombudsman’s decision not to challenge the amnesty law is to respect the judicial process and decisions that have already been made by the courts. By stepping away from intervening in cases where there has been judicial involvement, the Ombudsman is maintaining the separation of powers and respecting the decisions made by the judiciary. Additionally, there is a consideration for the citizens who have already been granted amnesty by the judges, taking into account their rights and the legal procedures that have been followed in their cases.
The analysis of the amnesty law by the Ombudsman includes historical, comparative law, jurisprudential, and conceptual perspectives that lead to a different conclusion than that of the Supreme Court. By highlighting these aspects, the Ombudsman is providing a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding the application of the amnesty law and the potential implications of challenging it. This multidimensional approach to the issue demonstrates a thorough examination of the legal and ethical considerations at play.
The decision not to challenge the amnesty law also takes into account the potential implications for those who have already been granted amnesty. By maintaining the status quo and not challenging the law, the Ombudsman is ensuring that the rights and freedoms of those individuals are protected and respected. This decision reflects a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the legal system, while also recognizing the importance of respecting the decisions made by the judiciary in previous cases.
Overall, the Ombudsman’s decision not to challenge the amnesty law is rooted in a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights. By taking into account both institutional reasons and substantive considerations, the Ombudsman has arrived at a decision that balances the various interests at stake in this complex legal issue. This approach highlights the importance of a nuanced understanding of legal matters and the need to carefully consider all aspects of a case before making a decision.
