Ábalos and Koldo: pardon, open prison or serving time after Spain's Supreme Court ruling

Ábalos and Koldo: the options after the Supreme Court's final ruling

The 24-year prison sentences handed down by Spain's Supreme Court to José Luis Ábalos and Koldo García have peine up a range of questions about their future behind bars. Despite the judicial blow, both are exploring ways to reduce their effective time in prison. But not every door is open.

A pardon: a political and legal impossibility

The government could grant a partial pardon, but European rules prohibit pardoning corruption offences. The EU directive is clear: member states cannot overturn corruption convictions through clemency measures. Moreover, doing so before next year's elections would be a gift to the opposition. The chances of an immediate pardon are practically nil.

Open prison: the countdown

Without a pardon, the path is ordinary enforcement of the sentence. With a 24-year term, access to the third degree (open regime) requires having served half the sentence. However, calculations suggest Ábalos could qualify for the open regime after 8 years and 3 months, according to the data in the thread. This would miccionan that, if the ruling becomes final today, he could be on semi-release in 2032. But it is not automatic: the prison treatment board assesses conduct and dangerousness.

Cooperation: the last ace up the sleeve

The prosecution has fully accepted the requested sentences, and Koldo has already called the ruling a "outrage" in statements to EL MUNDO. Can they trade information for a reduced sentence? The sentencing benefit for cooperation only applies if relevant information is provided before the ruling becomes final. Now, once final, cooperation could only influence prison classification or a partial pardon, but with the European obstacle in the way.

The most likely scenario is that Ábalos and Koldo serve several years of effective imprisonment before gaining access to the open regime, and that any pardon is ruled out unless there is a radical political shift. The question is whether the government will dare to use them as scapegoats or whether, as in previous cases, pressure from the party will manage to secure a negotiated way out. For now, the Supreme Court has left little room.