Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España

OnthetrialagainstJudgeBaltasarGarzón:TheapplicationofinternationallawtothecrimesoftheSpanishCivilWar

andtheFrancoregimedoesnotconstitutecriminalmalfeasance

InMay2010SpaincaughttheattentionoftheworldwhentheSupremeCourtsuspendedasaresultofacriminalmalfeasanceinvestigationopenedagainstJudgeBaltasarGarzón,theonlyjudgetohavechallengedthelackofaccountabilityrelatingtothecrimescommittedduringtheSpanishCivilwarandthesubsequentFrancoRegime.Thecrimeofmalfeasance,withwhichJudgeGarzónhasbeencharged,concernsmisconductintheadministrationofjusticeandsanctionsjudgesformakingunjustjudicialdecisions.InOctober2008JudgeBaltasarGarzónestablishedthejurisdictionoftheAudienciaNational,applyingtheprinciplethatcrimesagainsthumanitycannotbesubjecttostatutesoflimitationoramnesty.Heauthorizedtheinvestigationintotheallegeddisappearance,tortureandexecutionof114.266persons,identifiedasvictims,between17July1936andDecember1951.SinceauthorizingthemalfeasanceinvestigationagainstJudgeGarzón,theSupremeCourthasendeavoredtokeepthecaseawayfromthespotlightofinternationalscrutiny,refusingeventoallowthetestimonyofexpertwitnessesininternationallawduringthetrial.Hearingsinwhathasbeentermedthe‘historicmemory’caseagainstJudgeGarzónbeginon24January2012.Thistrial,ifsuccessful,couldrepresentthefinalsealofimpunityforthoseresponsibleforcrimescommittedduringtheCivilWarandtheFrancoregimeinSpain.Alternatively,itcouldfinallyclearapathforthecountrytobeginaneweraofjusticeforvictimsofpastcrimesneverbeforeinvestigatedbytheSpanishjusticesystem.

TheSupremeCourtinitsdecisionssofarhasmaintainedthesupremacyofnationallaw–includingthe1977AmnestyLaw–abovetheprinciplesofinternationallaw.Ithasalsoaffirmedthatjudicialactionsmustremainseparatefromlegislativeactionandpoliticalagreementswhich,accordingtotheCourt,legitimizethe1977AmnestyLawandmakeitdistinctfromothersthathavebeenrepealedinotherpartsoftheworld.TheSupremeCourthasnotrecognizedtheroleofthejudiciaryintakingcorrectiveactionwheredomesticlawcontradictstheprinciplesandnormsofinternationallaw.TheSupremeCourtinthisrespecthasauthorisedtheinvestigationandprosecutionofcrimesagainsthumanitycommittedinforeigncountries,buthastakenacontradictorypositioninrespectofsimilarcrimesallegedinSpain.Forthisreason,nationalandinternationalhumanrightsorganizationshavespokenoutagainsttheattackonjudicialindependenceinSpainrepresentedbythistrial.WehavealsowarnedofthenefariousprecedentthattheprevalentvisionintheSupremeCourtpresents,regardingbothaccesstojusticeforthevictimsoftheCivilWarandtheFrancoregimeand,moregenerally,fortheconductofnationalcourtsaroundtheworld.ThetrialofJudgeGarzónforthecrimeofcriminalmalfeasancehasimplicationsthatreachfarbeyondSpain’sborders.ThepanelofSupremeCourtjudgeswhichwillhearJudgeGarzón’sargumentshastheopportunitytocorrectthedangerouscourseinitiatedinthepre‐trialphasewheretheinvestigationforcriminalmalfeasancewasinappropriatelyauthorized.Anycriminaloffencesuchasmalfeasancebyjudicialofficersneedstobeappliedcautiously,soasnottounderminetheindependenceofthejudiciaryortosanctionajudgeforfollowinganacceptedinterpretationofinternationallaw.ThepaneloftheSupremeCourthastheoptionofcomplyingwiththeprovisionofSpanishConstitutionestablishingthatinternationallawformspartofSpanishlaw(Art.10.2and96),ratherthanperseveringwithamisguidedmovetopunishajudgeforapplyinginternationallawstandards–suchastheprinciplethatcrimesagainsthumanitycannotbesubjecttostatutesoflimitationsoramnesty.Inotherwords,theSupremeCourthasthepossibilityofbecomingtheguarantorofhumanrights,asjudgesinotherpartsoftheworldhavedone,orofbreakingwithinternationallawandstandardsandsodestroyingthepossibilityofaccesstojusticeforthevictimsofseriousviolationsofhumanrightssuchasthosethattookplaceduringtheSpanishCivilWarandtheFrancoregime.Spainitselfisobligedtoassureconformitywithinternationaltreatiestowhichitisaparty.TheStatehasaclearobligationtoinvestigateunlawfulkillings,torture,enforceddisappearancesandothercrimesunderinternationallawcommittedduringtheCivilWarandtheFrancoregime.TheCouncilofEurope’sGuidelinesoneradicatingimpunityforserioushumanrightsviolationsestablishesaguaranteethatisespeciallyimportantinthiscontext.Itstatesthatsafeguardsshouldbeputinplacetoensurethatlawyers,prosecutorsandjudgesdonotfearreprisalsforexercisingtheirfunctionsinthesetypesofcases.ThesignatoryorganizationscallontheSupremeCourttoactinaccordancewiththedutytoguaranteetheconstitutionalandinternationallawsthatdefineitsjurisdictionalfunctionwithregardtotheinternationalobligationstakenonbySpain;withregardtothestandardsofjusticewarrantedinatrialinvolvingajudgeoftheSpanishmagistracy;andwithrespecttojudicialindependenceconcerning,above,all,therightsofvictimsofcrimesunderinternationallaw.

January19,2012