Sunday, July 29, 2012

'Nuff said

'Garzón’s exoneration was viewed by most media outlets as a personal victory for the judge and a victory for the rule of law. In fact, the outcome was much more ambiguous; it defused the domestic and international outcry, but it effectively closed a venue for Civil War era claims. And in a separate and unrelated case, Judge Garzón was removed from the bench for eleven years. The prevaricación decision, as summarized below, contradicts recent trends in national and international jurisprudence on amnesty and international crimes. Moreover, less than a month later, the European Court of Human Rights rejected a challenge to Spain’s failure to investigate the fate of the Civil War missing. Together, these decisions probably end legal efforts to achieve some accounting for the crimes of the 1936-1939 Civil War and its repressive aftermath.'
--IntLawGrrl Naomi Roht-Arriaza (left), in "The Spanish Civil War, Amnesty, and the Trials of Judge Garzón," a superb ASIL Insight that explains the content and consequences of decisions (some available only in Spanish) relating not only to the legal travails of Judge Baltasar Garzón, but also to the quest for redress by survivors of victims of Franco-era atrocities. Prior posts on these issues, by Naomi and other IntLawGrrls, are available here and here.

No comments: