Puigdemont and Rovira charged with terrorism in Tsunami case

Judge charges Puigdemont and Rovira with terrorism in Tsunami case

Can a judicial order disrupt a government investiture? Manuel García Castellón, investigating judge at Spain's National Court (Audiencia Nacional), has charged former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont and ERC secretary general Marta Rovira with alleged terrorism offenses in the investigation into Tsunami Democràtic. The news was first reported by 20minutos. It lands while the political calendar is open and raises a key question: whether terrorism falls within the scope of the amnesty law currently being negotiated.

What the Tsunami Democràtic investigation covers

The charges place Puigdemont and Rovira at the center of an inquiry into the Tsunami Democràtic organization and the alleged terrorism offenses attributed to it. Terms must be distinguished carefully: being charged means a person is formally part of the proceedings under investigation, but it is not a conviction nor does it guarantee a trial.

From there, interpretations vary. One view holds that the order shows sufficient evidence existed for this step, which has come too late: the charges arrive, notably, four years after the events under investigation. The opposing view sees this delay as proof that the case is activated when politically convenient, rather than when legally appropriate.

Does terrorism fall under the amnesty law?

If the negotiated amnesty includes or excludes terrorism offenses, the nature of these charges shifts: they cease to be merely a judicial issue and become a political condition. The prevailing suspicion is that the judge has backed negotiators into a corner, forcing them to decide if the text also covers those charged via this route.

Some frame it differently: the charges allow expanding the norm without apparent cost, transforming it from a free concession into a technical necessity. The calculation made openly is simple. With four votes at stake, excluding someone charged with terrorism is more costly than including them.

Pressure on the investiture or routine procedure?

Two narratives compete, neither proven by the order itself. The first describes direct pressure on the negotiation: the document appears just as discussions on how crimes fit into the future law take place, leading some to read it as a warning like "sign or we pursue you." The second simply notes that judges investigate, and calendar coincidences are not evidence.

A third reading exists, uncomfortable for those expecting a clear beneficiary. If the charges force a broader amnesty, the winning position is the negotiating stance, not the prosecution. Hence the recurring question: who truly benefits from this move?

Pardon, amnesty, and the procedural detail that changes everything

A technical point circulating that should not be overlooked: you cannot pardon someone who has not been convicted. A pardon requires a prior final sentence, so the debate has shifted from pardons to amnesty, which acts before conviction rather than after. The incivil classification matters precisely because covering protest crimes differs significantly from covering those charged with terrorism.

Brussels looms here. It is suggested that an amnesty involving terrorism accusations in the file faces different scrutiny in European courts than domestic pardons, requiring the issue to be viewed as a preliminary legal matter, not just a political gesture.

How it looks from outside Spain

The most repeated argument concerns erosion of credibility: when abroad hears that Catalan leaders are charged with terrorism, the label loses weight and European Arrest Warrants become complicated. The historical rebuttal is direct: ETA suspects also found refuge in France and Belgium without ceasing to be what they were.

The less charitable diagnosis points elsewhere: a country that fails to have its rulings enforced abroad grows accustomed to not being taken seriously, and no judicial order fixes that.

The unsettling detail remains. A judge may take four years to charge someone, yet days of negotiation determine the fate of the accused. Here, justice moves at the estimulante ilegal dictated by politics.