Former minister and constitutional magistrate Juan Carlos Campo announced that he was withdrawing from the court’s deliberations regarding the amnesty law. Campo asked the plenary assembly to accept his abstention in the case of the question of unconstitutionality raised by the Supreme Court against the norm, alleging that he has a “direct or indirect interest” in the case and that he must withdraw to act impartially. as a magistrate.
Campo’s abstention must now be accepted by the plenary session, which will meet next week for its first meeting after the summer recess. One of the issues that will be on the table in the first phases of processing will be the question of unconstitutionality that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court presented against a good part of the precepts of the amnesty law approved in the middle of the year.
A writing from last July in which the second chamber, which condemned and condemned the process and also subsequently opposed the pardons, severely criticized the measure: “It establishes an unequal treatment of the crimes committed and their perpetrators exclusively determined according to their ideology or their political objectives,” the room explained.
This question of unconstitutionality is, for the moment, the only one raised by a court before the Constitutional Court against the amnesty law, even if several administrations presided over by the Popular Party have also announced the filing of appeals before the Court of Guarantees.
Juan Carlos Campo stated in his abstention proposal that he had a “direct or indirect interest in the trial,” also invoking the articles of the constitutional regulations that urge its magistrates to work “in accordance with the principles of impartiality and dignity.”
