Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.
Sign in

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Reform to limit pardons and make them transparent

Admitted step 2 of 7 · Rejected

It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 11 November 2013. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario de IU, ICV-EUiA, CHA: La Izquierda Plural.

Official title: Private member's bill to reform the Law of 18 June 1870 on the exercise of the Grace of Pardon.

Follow this law

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000123· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. The proposal criticizes that the current law on pardons dates from 1870 and that the system lacks transparency. It sets two goals: ending the political use of pardons and guaranteeing transparency in every decision.
  2. The bill would require pardon decisions to always state the specific crime, its degree of execution, the role of the offender (perpetrator or accomplice), the pardoned sentence, the origin of the request and the reason. Without those mentions, the decision would be void.
  3. It would exclude a list of crimes from pardons, including corruption, terrorism, torture, electoral crimes and environmental crimes. If the sentencing court issues an unfavorable report, a mixed committee of lawmakers and judges would issue a report binding on the Government.
  4. The Government would have to send pardon files every six months to the Justice Committee of the Congress of Deputies and publish yearly statistics with free public access. The law would also apply to pending cases and would take effect the day after its publication.

Who it affects

  • Convicted persons seeking a pardon: They would face a shorter list of pardonable crimes and stricter reasons for each decision.
  • The Government: It would lose discretion: more detailed reasons, binding reports and accountability to Congress.
  • Judges and courts: Their unfavorable report could block a pardon through a mixed committee.
  • The public: People would get free access to statistics on pardons granted.

Words worth knowing

Indulto (pardon)
A measure of grace that fully or partly forgives a sentence imposed by a court.
Título de la imputación
The role the person played in the crime: perpetrator or accomplice.
Informe vinculante (binding report)
A report the Government must comply with; it cannot ignore it.
Prevaricación
A crime committed by a judge or public official who knowingly issues an unfair ruling.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.

  1. Introduced11 November 2013Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted19 November 2013The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
  4. Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
Nov 2013Dec 2013Jan 2014Feb 201411. 11 November 2013: Presentación22. 19 November 2013: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 19/11/2013 hasta 22/11/201333. 19 November 2013: Calificación44. 22 November 2013: Gobierno Contestación desde 22/11/2013 hasta 03/02/201455. 3 February 2014: Pleno Toma en consideración desde 03/02/2014 hasta 11/03/201466. 11 March 2014: Concluido - (Rechazado) desde 11/03/2014 hasta 14/03/2014

11 March 2014

How did the plenary vote?

More votes against 133 yes · 171 no · 12 abst.

Voted on: Private member's bill by the Parliamentary Group of IU, ICV-EUiA, CHA: The Plural Left, for the reform of the Law of 18 June 1870 on the exercise of the Grace of Pardon.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 2 of sitting 173· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Mixto, GIP and GUPyD. Against, most of Popular en el Congreso.

By province: in 7 most voted in favour; in 34, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 7
  • Against: 34
  • Abstained: 1
  • Tie: 10
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Socialista110
103 in favour · 7 did not vote
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)5
5 in favour
Mixto18
11 in favour · 7 did not vote
GC-CiU16
12 abst. · 4 did not vote
GIP11
9 in favour · 2 did not vote
GUPyD5
5 in favour
Popular en el Congreso185
171 against · 14 did not vote

What happens next

What happens now?

It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.

Read the full method · Report an error