If the Government does not remedy this, on October 14, the reform of Organic Law 7/2014 will be sent to the Official State Gazette and, as indicated in its fifth final provision, will enter into force “twenty days after its publication”. Thus, at the beginning of November, the sentences of more than 40 ETA terrorists will be reduced. Pedro Sánchez is now the only one who can avoid it.
This bill was born as the simple transposition of a European directive of a technical nature which, moreover, was approached with a delay of two years. But in the presentation phase of his treatment, a series of amendments that made the standard controversial of this week.
The Popular Party took responsibility for its “chain error”, from the presentation to Congress until almost the plenary session of the Upper House. Because on this Tuesday morning, the law has stoppedbut only temporarily. Modification deadlines exhaustedthat this Tuesday the PP managed to remove the subject from the agenda, only gains time to that attention is diverted towards the PSOE.
“Now they have the opportunity to demonstrate whether they want to go down in history as a party on the side of the victims or on the side of the terrorists,” he said. Miguel Telladopopular spokesperson in Congress. The government, for its part, refuses to withdraw the law, defending that The treatment was “transparent”.
But is this so? Did everyone know what I voted for? WHO responsible the amendments? And who not having foreseen what was going to happen? Was there a prior agreement so that all this happens in silence? Between whom? And what is hidden behind certain amendments which to modify a bill that reform another law for transpose a European directive which updated a framework decision of the European Union?
The following explanation, regarding this fall 2024 controversy, brings us back to summer 2008:
What was happening at the Cortes?
The organic bill. Last March, Congress began the reform of Organic Law 7/2014 on exchange of information on criminal records and examination of criminal judicial resolutions in the European Union, for their adaptation to the European Union regulations on the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS).
What did the directive say?
Yes until the amendments arrive. It was the simple transposition of Directive (EU) 2019/884which modifies the Framework Decision 2009/315/JAl concerning the exchange of information on third-country nationals and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) and replacing the Decision 2009/316/JAl. The text presented to Congress by the government aimed to include in Spanish law the technical issues approved in Brussels.
What does the directive say?
A technical question. EU member states shared information on convictions and convicts with the rest of the Twenty-Seven, but only if they were EU citizens. With this legal text, coverage was also extended to prisoners from third countries “for a better fight against organized crime and terrorism”.
What did the 2008 and 2009 standards say?
Information exchanges. THE Framework Decision 316/JHA of 2008 clearly explains that “it does not intend to harmonize the consequences which the different national legislations recognize for the existence of previous convictions” and admits that “certain Member States attribute effects to sentences handed down in other Member States, while “others only take into account the sentences handed down”. by their national courts”.
THE Framework Decision 315/JHA of 2009 It also specifies that “it is not intended to enforce in one Member State judicial decisions taken in another Member State”.
First “hoax” of the PSOE: “It’s a European standard”.
That was the case and it ceased to be so with the amendments. What the PSOE claims ceased to be true from the moment the deputy Txema Guijarro introduced five amendments in Sumar’s name on criminal charges in a law aimed at facilitating the exchange of criminal information between EU countries. All, with the same objective: that the sentences served by a prisoner in another EU country are taken into account when calculating the length of prison in Spain. The policy objective of the standard has completely changed.
Second PSOE “hoax”: “The Council of State approved it”.
This is not true. Like any organic bill, this one had to go through the opinion of the Council of State. There was the text do the houseworkbefore the amendments. Of course, the articles passed the filter with a positive note, because it was a simple transposition of a European technical directive.
Third PSOE “hoax”: “The PP voted in all conscience. »
Feijóo apologizes for the negligence of his deputies. The PSOE puts it like evidence that the PP spokesperson in the Justice Commission celebrated the rule, accusing the government of “its delay” in transposition, and not of the content of the amendments. And even that the speakers signed that they had read “carefully” both the original text and the amendments. “But it’s a parliamentary formality,” explain the popular people.
Instead of looking for culprits, “the People’s Party looked for solutions,” says Génova. And it is true that, from the first moment, the president of the PP assumed “the error” as if it were his own.
Fourth “hoax” of the PSOE: “They cannot pay twice for the same crime”.
It was never about that. The socialist spokesperson in Congress, Patxi López, claimed that it was not really a “reduction of sentences”, but rather “preventing a criminal from paying twice for the same crime”.
The reality is that it is not about that: no ETA member convicted of criminal association in France was subsequently convicted of belonging to an armed gang in Spain. The amendment aims to ensure that the sentences linked to their terrorist activity are accumulated in the same “pack” for the calculation of maximum compliance, as if they were sentences handed down in Spain.
The PP’s “hoax”: “It’s a mistake”.
No, it’s negligence. Since the affair broke out on Monday, the PP has taken responsibility for the “chain of errors” of its parliamentarians. However, the reality is that no one made a mistake or misinterpreted a text; Sumar’s amendments were simply ignored, as the deputies focused on those of Junts, “to prevent Puigdemont from taking advantage”.
Is it certain that the law will free ETA?
This is what the PP hopes. But that doesn’t seem true. One of the popular excuses has been that “there are jurists who do not confirm that the law directly leads to the reduction of the sentences of ETA members”. But if we move on to the most explicit of the amendments, the argument does not hold: “The only complementary provision of Organic Law 7/2014, of November 12, on the exchange of information on criminal records and examination of criminal judicial decisions, is repealed. ..” in the European Union”.
That is to say the anti-ETA safeguard invented by Mariano Rajoy in 2014.
And what does this provision say?
A legal tip. When the Rajoy government transposed the 2008 directive, we were already in 2014. It arrived very late and, in addition, this unique additional provision was added so that no detainee could benefit from the measure before the deadline of transposition of the directive: that it must was in August 2010.
Why didn’t anyone say anything before Monday?
Because it suited everyone. Neither Sumar highlighted his “merit”, nor Bildu boasted of his “success”, nor the PSOE made public its “agreement”, nor did the opposition detect the ” deception”. The amendments were explicit, but in the debate recorded in the Congressional Sessions Journal, no one referred to them or their translation into sentence reduction. And when the PP discovered everything, last Friday, they got to work… in silence.
What options remain?
It all depends on the government. In reality, there remains only one option to avoid the prison benefits for ETA members: for the government to withdraw the law, now that the Senate has given it an extra week of treatment, invoking article 127 of the Regulations of the Upper House: “Bills presented by the Government may be withdrawn by it at all stages of the procedure before its final approval by the Chamber”.
What if the government doesn’t withdraw the law?
It will be published in the BOE. And it will come into force after 20 days: during its vote in the Senate, next Monday, at 12 p.m. And would there be a solution later? The PP announced that it would use “all political and legal tools” at its disposal to avoid reducing the sentences of ETA members. But a constitutional principle will work against them: as happened with the rapists who benefited from the Only yes it’s yesevery prisoner has the right to invoke the criminal law that benefits him the most from the moment he committed the crime until the end of his sentence.
