The Spanish judiciary has announced that the third prison term for Catalan political prisoners will be lifted. After spending 1/4 of the sentence in prison, every convicted prisoner in Spain is entitled to it. The political prisoners have therefore been allowed to spend weekends at home since the last two weeks. The Public Prosecutor’s Office’s (PPO) argument is that they do not regret their crimes (leading a peaceful protest, holding a parliamentary debate or organising a referendum) and pose a danger to society. For some of them, he proposes ‘special treatment’ (read: re-education) in order to bring them to different (political) thoughts. Since a week ago, the Supreme Court ad hoc (especially for these prisoners) ruled against the precedents (preliminary rulings) of this same court, the freedom of the Catalan prisoners is lifted immediately when the public prosecutor asks for it.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office is a tightly hierarchical organisation. It is headed by the Spanish Public Prosecutor. He acts on behalf of the government and the government. Currently, the Minister of Justice of the previous government of President Pedro Sánchez, Dolores Delgado, holds this position. This means that either the Spanish government supports the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s policy of re-arresting the Catalan prisoners, in contravention of current legislation and its interpretation by the judiciary. Either the Chief Public Prosecutor has no control over the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In the first case, it must be concluded that there is no point in the Catalan Government trying to negotiate a referendum for self-determination with the Spanish Government which, at the same time, represses the independence movement. In the second case, there is no point in negotiating with the Spanish Government because it has no control over its own public institutions.
An ad hoc ruling that gives a different interpretation to a law until then and with a view to a specific case is unheard of in a state under the rule of law. The ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court thus undermines the legal certainty and ground on which the law is based.
The prompt decision of the local judge of Manresa to comply with the prosecution damages the bias of the court. If it were indeed impartial, the case would be handled in order of entry, without priority.
From this it can only be concluded that Spain, once again, does not seek justice but wants to avenge and oppress its political opponents.