Contrary to what the Government intended with the legal reform that limits the intervention of the Spanish courts in crimes that can be tried under the umbrella of universal justice, The National Court has not closed the processes already open. One of the judges considers that the direct application of the norm conflicts with the Geneva Convention, and another doubts the constitutionality of the new law, just like the prosecutor's office itself. It opens, on the one hand, the discussion about which norm should predominate, whether it is approved by Parliament or the international agreements signed by Spain, and on the other, If the reform is unconstitutional because it affects the right to effective judicial protection.

This shows that the closure of open cases was not so simple, although the debate changes nature. Now it becomes an internal conflict over the interpretation of the rules, instead of the diplomatic conflicts that worried the Government so much due to judicial intervention in matters such as the genocide in Tibet, CIA flights, the death of cameraman José Couso in Iraq, or the genocides in Guatemala or the Sahara. The main argument of the legal change is that these cases should fall to an extraterritorial instance such as the International Criminal Court. (TPI), but countries as important as China or the United States do not recognize that jurisdiction. It is evident that not even China is going to prosecute crimes committed in Tibet, Nor will the United States judge the alleged perpetrators of the death of José Couso.

With this reform, The message that is broadcast from Spain is that others judge, thus violating the spirit of the agreements on which universal justice is based. Processes of this nature entail a series of procedures (arrest warrants, test practice) that can act as a deterrent against the temptation to commit new atrocities. Although there is not much that can be done from a specific country, that little is reduced to zero if justice is sacrificed to realpolitik. By processing the reform so expeditiously, reports and advice that would have been very convenient have been ignored, such as those of the Council of the Judicial Power and those of the Fiscal Council. A more serene debate would have allowed us to clarify and distinguish between maintaining the principle of universal justice and the way to apply it in a way that does not block international relations.. Far from closing, the matter remains open.

RELATED NEWS