Asociacin Pro Derechos Humanos de Espaa

OnthetrialagainstJudgeBaltasarGarzn: TheapplicationofinternationallawtothecrimesoftheSpanishCivilWar andtheFrancoregimedoesnotconstitutecriminalmalfeasance

InMay2010SpaincaughttheattentionoftheworldwhentheSupremeCourtsuspendedasaresult ofacriminalmalfeasanceinvestigationopenedagainstJudgeBaltasarGarzn,theonlyjudgetohave challengedthelackofaccountabilityrelatingtothecrimescommittedduringtheSpanishCivilwar andthesubsequentFrancoRegime. Thecrimeofmalfeasance,withwhichJudgeGarznhasbeencharged,concernsmisconductinthe administrationofjusticeandsanctionsjudgesformakingunjustjudicialdecisions.InOctober2008 JudgeBaltasarGarznestablishedthejurisdictionoftheAudienciaNational,applyingtheprinciple thatcrimesagainsthumanitycannotbesubjecttostatutesoflimitationoramnesty.Heauthorized theinvestigationintotheallegeddisappearance,tortureandexecutionof114.266persons, identifiedasvictims,between17July1936andDecember1951. SinceauthorizingthemalfeasanceinvestigationagainstJudgeGarzn,theSupremeCourthas endeavoredtokeepthecaseawayfromthespotlightofinternationalscrutiny,refusingeventoallow thetestimonyofexpertwitnessesininternationallawduringthetrial. HearingsinwhathasbeentermedthehistoricmemorycaseagainstJudgeGarznbeginon24 January2012.Thistrial,ifsuccessful,couldrepresentthefinalsealofimpunityforthoseresponsible forcrimescommittedduringtheCivilWarandtheFrancoregimeinSpain.Alternatively,itcould finallyclearapathforthecountrytobeginaneweraofjusticeforvictimsofpastcrimesnever beforeinvestigatedbytheSpanishjusticesystem.

TheSupremeCourtinitsdecisionssofarhasmaintainedthesupremacyofnationallawincluding the1977AmnestyLawabovetheprinciplesofinternationallaw.Ithasalsoaffirmedthatjudicial actionsmustremainseparatefromlegislativeactionandpoliticalagreementswhich,accordingto theCourt,legitimizethe1977AmnestyLawandmakeitdistinctfromothersthathavebeenrepealed inotherpartsoftheworld.TheSupremeCourthasnotrecognizedtheroleofthejudiciaryintaking correctiveactionwheredomesticlawcontradictstheprinciplesandnormsofinternationallaw.The SupremeCourtinthisrespecthasauthorisedtheinvestigationandprosecutionofcrimesagainst humanitycommittedinforeigncountries,buthastakenacontradictorypositioninrespectofsimilar crimesallegedinSpain. Forthisreason,nationalandinternationalhumanrightsorganizationshavespokenoutagainstthe attackonjudicialindependenceinSpainrepresentedbythistrial.Wehavealsowarnedofthe nefariousprecedentthattheprevalentvisionintheSupremeCourtpresents,regardingbothaccess tojusticeforthevictimsoftheCivilWarandtheFrancoregimeand,moregenerally,fortheconduct ofnationalcourtsaroundtheworld.ThetrialofJudgeGarznforthecrimeofcriminalmalfeasance hasimplicationsthatreachfarbeyondSpainsborders. ThepanelofSupremeCourtjudgeswhichwillhearJudgeGarznsargumentshastheopportunityto correctthedangerouscourseinitiatedinthepretrialphasewheretheinvestigationforcriminal malfeasancewasinappropriatelyauthorized.Anycriminaloffencesuchasmalfeasancebyjudicial officersneedstobeappliedcautiously,soasnottounderminetheindependenceofthejudiciaryor tosanctionajudgeforfollowinganacceptedinterpretationofinternationallaw. ThepaneloftheSupremeCourthastheoptionofcomplyingwiththeprovisionofSpanish ConstitutionestablishingthatinternationallawformspartofSpanishlaw(Art.10.2and96),rather thanperseveringwithamisguidedmovetopunishajudgeforapplyinginternationallawstandards suchastheprinciplethatcrimesagainsthumanitycannotbesubjecttostatutesoflimitationsor amnesty.Inotherwords,theSupremeCourthasthepossibilityofbecomingtheguarantorofhuman rights,asjudgesinotherpartsoftheworldhavedone,orofbreakingwithinternationallawand standardsandsodestroyingthepossibilityofaccesstojusticeforthevictimsofseriousviolationsof humanrightssuchasthosethattookplaceduringtheSpanishCivilWarandtheFrancoregime. Spainitselfisobligedtoassureconformitywithinternationaltreatiestowhichitisaparty.TheState hasaclearobligationtoinvestigateunlawfulkillings,torture,enforceddisappearancesandother crimesunderinternationallawcommittedduringtheCivilWarandtheFrancoregime. TheCouncilofEuropesGuidelinesoneradicatingimpunityforserioushumanrightsviolations establishesaguaranteethatisespeciallyimportantinthiscontext.Itstatesthatsafeguardsshould beputinplacetoensurethatlawyers,prosecutorsandjudgesdonotfearreprisalsforexercising theirfunctionsinthesetypesofcases. ThesignatoryorganizationscallontheSupremeCourttoactinaccordancewiththedutyto guaranteetheconstitutionalandinternationallawsthatdefineitsjurisdictionalfunctionwithregard totheinternationalobligationstakenonbySpain;withregardtothestandardsofjusticewarranted inatrialinvolvingajudgeoftheSpanishmagistracy;andwithrespecttojudicialindependence concerning,above,all,therightsofvictimsofcrimesunderinternationallaw. January19,2012