Examining these points, the draft states the following in point 87: "the Commission is of the view that the vivid controversy that this matter has sparked suggests that it would be preferable, when the time is ripe, to regulate this matter explicitly by way of a constitutional amendment."

The other criticisms of the amnesty draft

On the other hand, the draft criticizes that "the scope of application of the amnesty as defined in Article 1.1 of the amnesty bill is very broad and rather undetermined. It defines the acts through their intention." The draft also criticizes the "vagueness" of the text of the amnesty project and the fact that its application applies to "a rather lengthy period of time" (from 2012 to 2023). Point 89 of the document states:

"The Commission recommends defining the material and temporal scope of the application of the amnesty in a more precise way, so as to make the effects of the law more foreseeable. As amnesty affects the value of res iudicata, it must adhere to legal certainty, as otherwise it would undermine the public confidence in the observance and respect of the constitution and the law. The Commission stresses that the law will have to be interpreted and applied by the judges in each case to determine whether each case is eligible for the amnesty. The lack of clarity and determinacy of its scope of application carries the risk that a very large number of cases and controversies will arise about the correct application of the law. This in turns risks shifting the conflicts from the political to the judicial level. This result would not be coherent with the purpose of the amnesty as such."

Point 90 of the document adds more criticism of the amnesty:

As concerns equality in law, the Commission finds that if the link between “the consultations held in Catalonia on 9 November 2014 and 1 October 2017, their preparation or their consequences“ and the acts covered by the amnesty is not strong enough, amnesty could also cover many citizens who have committed ordinary crimes that have little or nothing to do with the social tensions that led to the amnesty law; this would make the justification for the special privileges questionable and would infringe the principle of equality in respect of those who have committed the same ordinary crimes for other reasons or during different periods, and do not benefit from the decriminalisation brought about by the amnesty. The Commission therefore reiterates its recommendation to define in a more restrictive and precise manner the scope of application of the amnesty. The Commission recalls that an amnesty is an impersonal measure applying to all persons or to a class of persons, and the criteria for its application should not be designed to cover specific individuals."

This last phrase is a clear allusion to Carles Puigdemont, who demands from the government an amnesty a la carte that covers all his problems with Justice, including his prosecution for terrorism crimes.

Point 93 of the document adds more criticism of the amnesty in relation to the crimes of embezzlement and corruption and its adjustment with the rule of law:

As explained above, in the Commission’s view there needs to be consistency in the determination of the acts covered by amnesty, which should be intrinsically linked, to avoid arbitrariness. Only a closer causal link between “the consultations held in Catalonia on 9 November 2014 and 1 October 2017, their preparation or their consequences” and certain acts of embezzlement and corruption could justify the application of amnesty to the latter. A broader, less precise definition of these acts would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of equality in law.

Regarding the claim that parliamentary committees be organized to examine the work of judges, in which parties that have violated the law and have wanted to leave the Constitution in Catalonia in suspension would participate, the draft states in point 108:

Under Article 122 of the Constitution of Spain, the body competent to address disciplinary issues of judges is the General Council of the Judiciary. Requiring judges to report to a political body, in public, about the manner in which they dealt with a specific case represents a political interference in the administration of justice. Furthermore, it creates a chilling effect on other judges, particularly those who are currently or will in the future hear pending cases or those linked to causes of exclusion from the application of the amnesty bill.

The recommendations made by the authors of the draft

In point 114, the draft makes several recommendations in relation to the amnesty project:

- To define the material and temporal scope of the application of the amnesty in a more precise way, so as to make the effects of the law more foreseeable;
- To ensure that a closer causal link is established between “the consultations held in Catalonia on 9 November 2014 and 1 October 2017, their preparation or their consequences” and the acts of embezzlement and corruption;
- To remove the criterion of the stage of the procedure for the exclusion of crimes of terrorism.

Point 116 adds another recommendation:

- that the committees of inquiry set up by the Congress of Deputies of Spain should not be mandated, nor seek to require that judges report to them, in particular on the merits of the cases which they have decided.

Finally, the draft also criticizes the rush to approve the amnesty in point 117:

Finally, the Venice Commission observes that the amnesty bill has been presented in the form of a legislative proposal, which is a procedure with limited consultation of the public, of the stakeholders and of other state institutions, and has followed an urgent procedure. Yet, the amnesty bill has stirred a deep and virulent division in the political class, in the institutions, in the judiciary, in the academia and in the society of Spain. The Commission encourages all the Spanish authorities to take the necessary time for meaningful dialogue in the spirit of loyal cooperation among state institutions as well as majority and opposition, in order to achieve social and political reconciliation, and to consider exploring restorative justice procedures.

A document that does not support the amnesty: the government has lied

Personally, I think that the draft is undemanding of the government (at this point, I don't expect much from the European institutions), but this text does not endorse the amnesty in any way and is not a definitive document . What we have seen in the last few hours is a disinformation campaign inappropriate for a democratic government, but which is already typical of the Spanish socialist government. Sánchez has settled on lies and deception as tools to justify his actions , something typical of an apprentice tyrant.