The Constitutional Council has ruled on the general amnesty law. The ruling has split opinion.
Some say it protects justice. In their view, it stops the amnesty from covering corruption and war crimes. Others say it goes beyond interpreting vague texts. They call it politically motivated.
Critics say the balance was upset
Critics say the ruling upset the political balance built into the law. They argue it freed people convicted of drug crimes who are linked to one particular party. At the same time, they say it blocked shorter sentences for others. These are prisoners sentenced to death or to life in prison.
The main objection
The Speech has learned that the central objection concerns the death penalty. The law would have abolished it. The sentence would have become life with hard labor, counted as 17 years.
The Council refused. It held that the sentence must stay reduced to a minimum of 28 years. It also refused to treat these prisoners like those serving life terms.
Its reasoning was simple. Before the death penalty was abolished, judges set harsher penalties according to the gravity of the crime.
A binding ruling
The Council stressed that its decisions bind all authorities. Parliament must therefore follow its rulings and interpretations. This applies if Parliament wants to re-legislate or amend related laws.
