“Given that the previous document was presented by the Junta de Andalucía, attach the minutes of your reason and transfer the following separate request for pardon to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the purpose of drawing up a report,” reads an order of the Court of Seville, dated March 19 but notified on Holy Wednesday, to which LA RAZÓN agreed. In summary, the Seville court asks the public prosecutor’s office to report on the request for pardon filed by the former president of the Junta de Andalucía José Antonio Griñán – who did not go to prison due to the cancer from which he suffers despite his six-year sentence for ERE fraud – and of others convicted of embezzlement in this case.

The first section of the hearing asks the Public Prosecutor’s Office to publish its report, after the Junta of Andalusia issued its own indictment report, despite Griñán’s refusal. The amnesty law has partially obscured the pardon process for the “ERE file”, which continues to be processed. The Court of Seville asked the legal services of the Andalusian Government to rule on the request of the former Andalusian president José Antonio Griñán. The Andalusian Administration stressed that it was responding based on legal and not political criteria. Griñán’s defense said the Commission should not be questioned about this matter because it understands that it is not an injured party in this matter. “I am not a supporter of pardons, even less for people convicted of corruption.” In these terms, the president of the Junta of Andalusia, Juanma Moreno, referred to the request of the Court of Seville to the Andalusian Administration to take a position on the request for pardon of the former Andalusian president and other convicts . in the “ERE case” to be exonerated from the charges against him. Moreno clarified that he was in favor of Griñán not being imprisoned due to the cancer he suffers from, but that he was against clemency. In an interview with LA RAZÓN, the Minister of Justice of Andalusia, José Antonio Nieto, stressed that he believed “that in the spirit of the PSOE the pardon for Griñán has always been and surely not only for Griñán” well that the amnesty for those convicted by the Trial left the cause in the background.

The Commission’s response regarding pardons was brutal: “The only thing this administration can assert, considering its exclusive status as aggrieved, regarding the request for pardon requested, is that to date it has not yet been compensated by those who were convicted”, indicates the letter addressed to the Court, recalling that “all kinds of actions are carried out to recover what was defrauded, using all possible legal means”. The Commission affirms in its writes that the damage and harm caused to the Andalusian public treasury and to all Andalusians” They amount to “an amount of 679,412,179 euros”.

Griñán’s defense affirmed that neither the Commission is a party to these actions in question and that the prison sentence imposed on the former Andalusian president does not include damages or conviction in civil liability, with which the representation of the former president warned that they would not suffer any harm in these specific actions. . Thus, Griñán’s representation requested in its appeal the annulment of the Court’s judgment. The Court rejected Griñán’s complaint as an incident of nullity in his defense, arguing that allowing the Commission to rule constituted a violation of the right to effective judicial protection. Griñán’s lawyer understands that the Commission carried out the private prosecution but at the time, on the recommendation of the legal services, requested that the proceedings be dismissed. However, the Commission reserved the right to initiate civil proceedings.

Former President Griñán and other convicts opened the way to pardon after their conviction in the room through the specific procedure of the ERE, with separate appeals for protection before the Constitutional Court. In January, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Constitutional Court maintained the thesis according to which the sentences should be ratified, maintaining that the amparo appeals of eight of the twelve convicted persons be partially accepted, in particular for one of the reasons linked to the crime of prevarication.

By wbu4c

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *