The judges have rejected the automatic filing of universal justice cases
The reform of the Organic Law of the Judiciary that limits universal justice to a minimum orders in its final disposition the dismissal of all those open extraterritorial justice cases that do not fit the restrictive criteria of the new norm. The judges of the National Court have rejected the automatic file that follows from the literality of the text, although the solutions applied by each of them are varied.
» ‘Cuso case’. Judge Santiago Pedraz has been the one who has opposed the new law the most. In the Couso case, about the death of the Telecinco cameraman in the Iraq war in 2003 by shooting by American soldiers, Pedraz has refused to apply the law, which he reproaches for “obvious gaps”, and has refused to close the summary to submit it to the Criminal Court, upper organ, as requested by the prosecution. The magistrate considers that the IV Geneva Convention on civilian personnel in time of war prevails over Spanish law.
» 'Tibet Case'. The judge of the National Court Ismael Moreno has asked the prosecution if he should archive the universal justice cases that are being investigated in his court, among them the open against former Chinese presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin for the genocide in Tibet. This summary is at the root of the diplomatic pressures of the Asian giant that led the Government of Mariano Rajoy to promote legal reform to limit universal justice to the extreme..
» Rwanda Cases / Irak. Judge Fernando Andreu gave ten days to the parties appearing in the Rwanda case, about the genocide of the Hutu ethnic group in Rwanda and Congo between 1994 and 2000, and in the attack by Iraqi soldiers against the Ashraf refugee camp (Irak), so that they can allege “about the relevance of raising unconstitutionality issue” of the new standard.
» 'Ellacuría Case'. Magistrate Eloy Velasco continues with the investigation opened in 2010 for him murder of six Jesuit priests at the Central American University of El Salvador in November 1989, and calls it “illogical”” the new limiting rule. Velasco considers that the decision to verify the requirements of compliance with the law corresponds to the investigating judge himself and not to the Criminal Chamber of the National Court., as the prosecution maintains.
