This Friday, Sumari will write a complaint against the interim president of the General Council of the Judiciary and the members who promoted the declaration against the amnesty law a few weeks ago, in early November, when it was proposed by the Socialist Party. Unknown. The governing body of judges, whose mandate expired five years ago, approved an institutional declaration that claimed the law, then still a hypothetical text, constituted “the abrogation of the rule of law.”
The parliamentary group understands that President Vicente Guilarte committed the crime of prevarication by “knowingly dictating an unjust resolution” and being an essential accomplice in the crime of prevarication “committed by the supporters and signatories of the agreement” by convening the plenary session. An extraordinary session to discuss this statement, according to what appears in the complaint that elDiario.es had access to. The members who supported the initiative were Gerardo Martinez Tristan, Jose Maria Macias, Jose Antonio Ballestero, Nuria Dias Abadi, Juan Manuel Fernandez, Juan Martinez Moya, Carmen Lombardi, Maria Angeles Carmona and the aforementioned Onelea.
Gilarte convened this plenary session on November 6, and the institutional declaration was the only item on the agenda. The vote went ahead with nine votes against five: in favor of the eight members of the hard core of the conservative sector, who pushed for the convening of the plenary session, and the conservative Wenceslaus Olea, who did not sign the petition. The interim president, Vicente Guilarte, abstained, and the five progressives who were present rejected the text. Member Álvaro Cuesta, who was then elected on the proposal of the PSOE, followed his order and was not present at the call, which he considered “impermissible and illegal” and which, in his opinion, discussed what he considered a “political pamphlet”. .
The members elected by the proposal of the PP managed to make a strong statement of the most important institution of the third power of the state against the decriminalization of the process, which at that time was carried out by the PSOE and the independence parties. The statement had no practical effect, but it had an undeniable resonance in the media.
The approved text accused Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of “confounding the interests of Spain” with his personal interest in “preventing the hypothetical formation of governments of parties with different ideologies from his own” and said the position of head of the executive was “clearly incompatible with political vicissitudes” and “categorically incompatible with the principle of the rule of law”. . All this despite the fact that at that time the content of the text, which PSOE would register at the Congress of Deputies a few days later, was not yet known.
Sumar now understands that the members have committed a crime with the movement by forcing a plenary session and being unclear about the approved resolution. “A crime of resolution is a crime of consequence, not of mere activity, but in which the activity coincides with the result which is the issuance of a resolution,” said the petition filed in the Supreme Court this Friday. “The acceptance and dissemination of the November 6 agreement has seriously harmed the common interests and with it a materially unjust result,” the text continues.
The complaint accuses the promoters and signatories of the agreement of acting with a “stunning lack of legal rigor” in deciding on a non-existent law, the content of which they did not know, and believed they were positioning themselves “clearly in favor of the position it advocated. Political party”.
“They conditioned and influenced legal opinion (due to their position in the judiciary) and the public to interpret a non-existent law, the content and form of which they did not know, the implementation of which is not even their responsibility and contribution. Polarization, intensification of social conflict due to serious and unjustified disqualifications directed at the incumbent of the government,” the complaint continues. “Therefore, the arbitrariness of the adopted resolution is obvious,” he says.
Source: El Diario