Spain's prosecution and attorney defend amnesty to Puigdemont on independence push charges

Spain's public prosecution office and the state's attorney have defended granting amnesty to former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont over his role in organizing the 2017 independence referendum.

The only party opposing the amnesty is the private prosecution, represented by the far-right party Vox. The prosecutor's office and the state's attorney presented their arguments before the Supreme Court in a session reviewing the appeals submitted by Puigdemont and former Catalan ministers Toni Comín and Lluís Puig.

The three politicians left Catalonia in late October 2017. Spain had deemed the independence referendum illegal.

Public prosecutor Ángeles Sánchez Conde stated that "anyone who is able to read the law and is aware of the events knows that [the amnesty] objectively applies and can be granted." She argued that the notion these individuals sought personal enrichment contradicts the “lengthy” prison sentences they would have faced.

Once the Supreme Court rules on the amnesty, Puigdemont, Comín, and Puig may appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court.

In a previous ruling in July, the court rejected amnesty for those convicted—and later pardoned—on charges of misuse of public funds. The 51-page ruling stated: "Anyone who takes someone else's property—in this case, public funds—commits a crime, even if the money is used for gifts, charity, or other altruistic purposes."

Catalan High Court

Following the court session, Puigdemont's lawyer, Gonzalo Boye, expressed hope that the amnesty law would be implemented.

He pointed out inconsistencies in how the misuse of public funds charge has been interpreted, stating, "There have been four different interpretations. This does not guarantee judicial security."

Boye also called for the case to be transferred to the Catalan High Court (TSJC), arguing that "none of those affected are members of the European Parliament." Therefore, he said, they should not be tried by the Supreme Court but rather by the TSJC.