Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge who ordered the arrest of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998 on the basis of “universal justice” principles is now likely to be forced to resign from his office on April 22.
He is accused of abusing his power and, if convicted, he could be forbidden from any legal activity for the next 12 to 20 years. As Garzon is currently 54 years old, such a decision would put an end to his career.
Garzon is being sued for having launched an investigation in 2008 that aimed to understand human rights abuses that led to the disappearance of an estimated 114,000 people during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and repression by Franco’s dictatorship (1939-1975).
In Spain, an amnesty law enacted in 1977 forbids any such legal procedure against Franco’s former supporters. Garzon tried to overcome this obstacle by calling the abuses committed in their time by right-wing Franco supporters “crimes against humanity.” Such a qualification, hoped Garzon, should have superseded the amnesty law.
But prosecutor Luciano Varela called it an “artificial legal trick,” and favorably received complaints from three far-right associations, including the historical fascist movement Spanish Falange.
“If he is condemned, that would be a new victory for Franco,” said filmmaker Pedro Almodovar during a rally of support in Madrid on April 15.
Jose Blanco, organization secretary and No. 2 in the Spanish Socialist Party, who attended the protest, said to Le Monde newspaper that he could “hardly understand that the Falange could send to the chair of defendants the man who tried to restore the memory of dictatorship victims.”
Left-wing supporters of Garzon claim the notorious judge has become the victim of a too-conservative Spanish justice system.
However, Christian Galloy, an analyst of Spanish politics, observed on the LatinReporters.com Web site that the two public prosecutors who initiated the procedure against Garzon “belong to the progressionist branch of Spanish justice. This contradicts the saying by some media that Garzon is a victim of magistrates having some nostalgia of Franquism.”
According to Spanish prosecutors, only Spanish lawmakers are entitled to abrogate the amnesty law, as was done in Argentina in 2003.
Garzon benefits from strong sympathies for his hunt of South American torturers, ETA terrorists, al-Qaeda leader Osama Ben Laden—or even, more recently, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Esteban Beltran, director of Amnesty International Spain told LatinReporters that the legal actions against Garzon “send an awful message to other countries.”
One of Garzon’s lawyers however emphasized that Garzon “does not feel like being persecuted by the Supreme Court. He even thinks that protests made in his favor—and he does not control them—could be harmful to him.”
Garzon indeed faces other, much less controversial legal actions and would certainly not wish to irritate the Supreme Court. He is, for instance, accused of having favored the Santander banking group from which he had received a generous payment of $300,000 as compensation for conferences attended in the United States. According to Spanish Justice, Garzon later handed a quick “not guilty” verdict against the CEO of Santander when he was targeted by a complaint in Spain, and did not declare any conflict of interest.
According to a poll echoed by Le Monde newspaper, 68 percent of socialist voters support Garzon, while 68 percent of popular party (right-wing) voters support the procedure against him. A clearly divided opinion in a country that still fears its unity could be threatened by specters of the past.
He is accused of abusing his power and, if convicted, he could be forbidden from any legal activity for the next 12 to 20 years. As Garzon is currently 54 years old, such a decision would put an end to his career.
Garzon is being sued for having launched an investigation in 2008 that aimed to understand human rights abuses that led to the disappearance of an estimated 114,000 people during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and repression by Franco’s dictatorship (1939-1975).
In Spain, an amnesty law enacted in 1977 forbids any such legal procedure against Franco’s former supporters. Garzon tried to overcome this obstacle by calling the abuses committed in their time by right-wing Franco supporters “crimes against humanity.” Such a qualification, hoped Garzon, should have superseded the amnesty law.
But prosecutor Luciano Varela called it an “artificial legal trick,” and favorably received complaints from three far-right associations, including the historical fascist movement Spanish Falange.
Spanish Opinion Divided
“If he is condemned, that would be a new victory for Franco,” said filmmaker Pedro Almodovar during a rally of support in Madrid on April 15.
Jose Blanco, organization secretary and No. 2 in the Spanish Socialist Party, who attended the protest, said to Le Monde newspaper that he could “hardly understand that the Falange could send to the chair of defendants the man who tried to restore the memory of dictatorship victims.”
Left-wing supporters of Garzon claim the notorious judge has become the victim of a too-conservative Spanish justice system.
However, Christian Galloy, an analyst of Spanish politics, observed on the LatinReporters.com Web site that the two public prosecutors who initiated the procedure against Garzon “belong to the progressionist branch of Spanish justice. This contradicts the saying by some media that Garzon is a victim of magistrates having some nostalgia of Franquism.”
According to Spanish prosecutors, only Spanish lawmakers are entitled to abrogate the amnesty law, as was done in Argentina in 2003.
Garzon benefits from strong sympathies for his hunt of South American torturers, ETA terrorists, al-Qaeda leader Osama Ben Laden—or even, more recently, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Esteban Beltran, director of Amnesty International Spain told LatinReporters that the legal actions against Garzon “send an awful message to other countries.”
One of Garzon’s lawyers however emphasized that Garzon “does not feel like being persecuted by the Supreme Court. He even thinks that protests made in his favor—and he does not control them—could be harmful to him.”
Garzon indeed faces other, much less controversial legal actions and would certainly not wish to irritate the Supreme Court. He is, for instance, accused of having favored the Santander banking group from which he had received a generous payment of $300,000 as compensation for conferences attended in the United States. According to Spanish Justice, Garzon later handed a quick “not guilty” verdict against the CEO of Santander when he was targeted by a complaint in Spain, and did not declare any conflict of interest.
According to a poll echoed by Le Monde newspaper, 68 percent of socialist voters support Garzon, while 68 percent of popular party (right-wing) voters support the procedure against him. A clearly divided opinion in a country that still fears its unity could be threatened by specters of the past.
Friends Read Free