A renewed debate over the limits of power in pardons has flared up in Spain. The Supreme Court has made it clear: its role is restricted to reviewing the formal aspects of the process, not to analyzing the motives that guide the government’s decisions. This statement came amid the review of a pardon request for former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz, who was convicted of disclosing confidential information.
The Administrative Chamber considered the appeal by the convicted official, who argued that he had completely changed and deserved a second chance. Despite his claims of social rehabilitation and family support, neither the court nor the prosecution backed his petition. As a result, the government denied the pardon, and the Supreme Court confirmed that it does not have the authority to interfere with the substance of the decision.
Procedure and limitations
The judges reminded that a pardon is an act of clemency, not a legal obligation. Their task is to ensure that all necessary documents and opinions are gathered, but nothing more. Even if the government’s motives seem questionable, the court cannot challenge them. In this case, the procedure was followed, and the decision remains in force.
During the review of a pardon request, the opinions of the court, the prosecutor’s office, and the victim are collected. However, these conclusions are not binding for the government. The Minister of Justice submits a recommendation to the Council of Ministers, which makes the final decision, guided by considerations of justice, equality, or public interest.
Details of the García Ortiz case
Public attention is focused on the García Ortiz case, as his pardon request was among the first following the verdict. The Ministry of Justice received several statements in his support, which automatically triggered the review procedure. Now, the opinions of all parties must be gathered, including the Supreme Court, the prosecutor’s office, and the victim.
There is no legal time limit for reviewing such cases, but in practice, the process may take around six months. If several requests are submitted, the procedure can be extended. The application can be filed not only by the convicted person but also by relatives or even third parties.
Historical context
In recent years, the issue of pardons has repeatedly sparked sharp political and public debates. The most notable example was the pardons granted in June 2021 to former leaders of the Catalan independence movement. At that time, the government released them from prison sentences but upheld the ban on holding public office. This decision triggered a wave of protests and lawsuits, yet the Supreme Court once again affirmed: the government’s motives cannot be challenged as long as proper procedures are followed.
In such cases, courts limit themselves to verifying the fulfillment of formal requirements, leaving the political and moral aspects within the purview of the executive branch. This practice highlights the special role of the government in pardon decisions and maintains the balance between branches of power.
In recent years, Spain has faced several high-profile cases related to pardons. Decisions on these matters have often led to public outcry and political debate. For example, the 2021 pardons for participants in the Catalan process provoked a strong reaction in society and prompted numerous court appeals. Despite the protests, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the limits of its authority in such matters. This stance shapes stable judicial practice and influences how the institution of pardon is perceived in the country.
