The former president of the Generalitat Carles Puigdemont Tuesday, he challenged the instructor of the processThe magistrate Pablo Llarena, whom he accuses of “doing whatever is in his power to prevent” the application of a hypothetical Amnesty Law.
In the brief presented to the Supreme Court, Puigdemont’s defense maintains that on September 11, the magistrate gave a conference at the Burgos Law School in which “he expanded on the possible consequences and actions that would be taken in the event that an Amnesty Law were approved.”
Specifically, according to the lawyer’s writing Gonzalo BoyeLlarena would have stated that there may be a “questioning of the constitutionality” of a possible and future amnesty law, pointing out that it would be necessary to study “whether or not the constitutional order allows amnesty” and “then we must look at whether the possible law is legitimate or if it is justified”, that is, “if it is not unconstitutional, if appropriate”.
The 1-O instructor would have indicated that it must be analyzed “if there is a constitutionally legitimate purpose that justifies deactivating fundamental constitutional principles.”
According to Puigdemont, these statements show that in “the hypothetical case of a rule of these characteristics being approved by the Legislative Branch, the investigating magistrate will do everything in his power to prevent its application to this specific case.”