The Supreme Court applies the amnesty to Junqueras and three former councilors of 1-O and defends itself against the criticism of the Constitutional Court and its "unnecessary grandiloquence"

Judicial end of the process. The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has declared this Tuesday the criminal responsibility of the 1-O leaders, Oriol Junqueras, Dolors Bassa, Jordi Turull and Raül Romeva, extinguished, in application of the Amnesty Law and by assuming in its entirety the operative part of the ruling of the Constitutional Court that granted protection to former councilor Bassa.

The Chamber that issued the order is made up of judges Andrés Martínez Arrieta (president), Manuel Marchena (rapporteur) and Antonio del Moral.

Regarding the request for the elimination of criminal records recorded following the sentence that sentenced them to high prison sentences for sedition and embezzlement of public funds, the High Court agrees to inform the Ministry of Justice of its order so that it can proceed with it.

The order summarizes the considerations of the Constitutional Court's ruling to grant protection and declare the nullity of the Supreme Court rulings that considered that the Amnesty Law excluded its application to the crime of embezzlement of those convicted in the case of the process, due to a personal benefit of a patrimonial nature.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court defends itself against the criticism of the body chaired by Cándido Conde-Pumpido and points out that "the resolution signed by seven magistrates of the Constitutional Court contains a disqualification that extends to another 14 magistrates who have defended the interpretation that is now considered to violate the right to effective judicial protection."

Attributing to the interpretation of this Chamber a "drastic contradiction", a "teleological reduction", an "extensive interpretation", an "unforeseeable interpretation of the applicable precepts", a distancing from "common sense", from "logic", from the purpose of the law and, finally, the absence of an elementary "nexus of coherence", represents enriching its decision with considerations absolutely unnecessary to support the resolution.

"The crust of these words, their unnecessary grandiloquence reveals the desire to adorn an invasive reasoning of the jurisdictional scope that corresponds to the Supreme Court with expressions designed to camouflage the intensity of the interference," consider the TS magistrates.

Likewise, the magistrates stated that "the resolution granting protection to Dolores Bassa is not interpreted by this Chamber as the manifestation of an institutional conflict with the Constitutional Court, but rather as a rupture of this body with its own historical jurisprudence."

For the Supreme Court, "the resolution granting protection to the appellant also departs from precedents in which the Constitutional Court affirmed that the balance of constitutional Justice cannot be tilted in any direction to choose between two equally reasonable solutions without interfering in the core of the power to judge, whose independence of judgment is proclaimed by the Constitution, since the protection is not configured as a last resort nor does it have a cassation function, both operating in the scope of legality."

The order emphasizes that "this Chamber does not delve into the dogmatic controversy, of such practical impact, about the scope of the decisions of the Constitutional Court that have expanded, to unprecedented limits in its own history, the space that article 123 of the Constitution reserves for what is to be understood as constitutional guarantees. On the contrary, we assume in its entirety the operative part of the sentence that grants the protection."