The Constitutional Court is studying the report that supports the amnesty today.

The Constitutional Court (CC) is holding its first plenary session today, dedicated to the Amnesty Law. According to the agenda, the court's vice president and rapporteur of the ruling, Inmaculada Montalbán, will give a detailed presentation to the other judges of the report she prepared in response to the appeal filed by the People's Party (PP), which validates the essential provisions of the law.

The second plenary session devoted to the amnesty will be held in two weeks, when the text will be debated in depth and the constitutionality of the law will be voted on.

Conde-Pumpido has set aside five days, from June 23 to 27, for the plenary session that will debate and vote on the law.

This second plenary session, which will focus on the amnesty, was initially scheduled for three days. However, yesterday it was announced that the president of the Constitutional Court, Cándido Conde-Pumpido, has agreed to extend the deliberation and vote on the report on the Amnesty Law to the entire week of June 23-27, from Monday to Friday, in order to allow sufficient time and maintain the continuity of the deliberation and the unity of the vote.

According to legal sources cited by Efe, this provision, studied in detail with rapporteur Inmaculada Montalbán, is necessary to begin reviewing the 30 pending cases on this matter in September, including appeals from the autonomous communities, courts, and constitutional protection.

Regarding the plenary session that begins today, Montalbán's presentation is included on this week's agenda under a section titled "Matters for Initial Study." The judge will simply explain her proposal to the other judges, without any deliberation.

The 191-page report concludes, in general terms, that the Amnesty Law is constitutional, arguing that "the legislature may do anything that the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit." Thus, it rejects the idea that the express prohibition of general pardons could be extended by analogy to amnesty, about which the Constitution is silent.

The text makes no mention of the crime of embezzlement, the core of the Supreme Court's reluctance to apply the law, because the PP's appeal did not challenge any aspect related to this crime.