The revision of the crime of sedition is going to fester relations between powers of the State more than the granting of pardons to the independentistas. Part of the judiciary is convinced that the Government acts irresponsibly out of partisan interest and in Moncloa they believe that too many judges pretend to act as politicians. If those sparks that have been flying between the two powers for a long time are applied to the Catalan question, the explosion is served.
The Supreme Court did not discuss whether the pardons were granted, although its mandatory report was unfavorable on the grounds that the prisoners had shown no interest in redeeming themselves. After all, it is a discretionary decision of the Government. Nothing to say. On the other hand, the modifications on account of the crime of sedition, eliminating it and adding the aggravation of public disorder, do cause deep discomfort. Although in Moncloa they assure that a few years ago the same judges who now disagree were in favor of updating this crime, today it is clear that in the Supreme they do not share neither the moment nor the form.
As for the calendar, because the court is waiting for what the European justice decides on its sentence. By changing the Penal Code, the idea is conveyed that not even the Spanish State itself believes that there should be a crime for which politicians have been sentenced to up to 13 years in prison. In other words, the Supreme Court ruling runs the risk of appearing as a disproportionate decision and, therefore, unfair. But the way it is going to be done also threatens a storm.
If the text remains as the PSOE and UP have registered it in Congress – it will have to pass the parliamentary process of amendments – there are those who consider in the Supreme Court that Carles Puigdemont, for example, could appear the next day in Catalonia and would be free. When sedition disappeared, it would be necessary to discern whether what the former president did corresponds to the new crime of "aggravated public disorder" and it does not have to be so, according to the criteria of some judges.
Moreover, the embezzlement that was attributed to the convicted as a means to commit sedition would also decline under this thesis, since if the main crime (sedition) does not exist, neither does the instrument to commit it. Even the disqualification would dissolve. The criterion of the Supreme Court is essential for the reform to be applied. It is the same room that prosecuted the imprisoned leaders that will have to review that conviction, ex officio. It is also the Supreme Court, in this case Judge Pablo Llarena, who will decide on the European orders to extradite the fugitives.
On the other hand, in Moncloa they consider that the reformulation of the crimes facilitates these extraditions, since there is no longer talk of sedition, something that in some European legal systems is not understood, but of aggravated public disorder, associated with lower sentences, which would make it easier for those countries to grant surrender without misgivings. Puigdemont would be in that situation. The Republican Marta Rovira too, but she is not accused of embezzlement, so her judicial journey is less damaging.
All in a context of tension between the Government and the Council of the Judiciary, which has not been consulted on this matter because a bill (not a bill) has been chosen to approve it faster. And at a time when Sánchez wants to renew the Constitutional Court. It is clear that the great pulse of this legislature has been from the beginning that of the Government and the judges, or vice versa.
