(In English below)
PRESS RELEASE from the Tibet Support Committee (CAT) Informa:
The Constitutional Court admits the CAT appeal on the Tibet case for processing
Hope endures for the victims and for a judicial system not submissive to the impunity of large States.
After more than a year and a half of waiting, The Constitutional Court has finally accepted for processing the appeal for protection presented by the CAT and co-plaintiffs Thubten Wangchen and Casa del Tíbet Foundation, after the filing of the Tibetan genocide case. La Sección Cuarta del Tribunal ha apreciado que "concurre en el mismo una especial trascendencia constitucional (art.50.1 LOTC) as a consequence that the possible violation of the fundamental right that is denounced could come from the law” (STC 155/2009, FJ2, c)”.
It should be remembered that as a consequence of the Decree of International Arrest orders against former leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (Jiang Zemin y Li Peng, inter alia) by the National Court, The Spanish government knelt before Beijing's pressures and ended up derogating the 10 March 2014 The Universal Jurisdiction Law. The Tibet case was immediately filed and caused a cause closing chain reaction (Guantanamo, Stuff, Freedom flotilla against Israel authorities, Falun Gong,…).
The Supreme Court in Judgment of 6 May 2015 ratified the archive decision and against said verdict there was an appeal for amparo before the Constitutional Court, considering that the legal reform of universal justice violated different precepts of the Spanish Constitution.
José Elias Esteve Moltó, editor and main lawyer of Tibet's cases commented upon hearing the news: “The current admission to process by the Constitutional Court again opens the door to hope not only to Tibetan victims, but to that of other serious conflicts that had been abandoned. It's more, The fact that judges debate the controversial modification of the Universal Jurisdiction Law in depth, opens again the debate why international law cannot be relegated to the background; and more, when the internal legal reform was publicly sponsored by an autocratic government and justified by an alleged and unquestionable interest in the defense of the public debt.”
Alan Cantos, Director of the Tibet Support Committee, he said when he found out: “Not only does it open the hope of not leaving the victims of Tibet and many other cases lying in the gutter, but to alleviate national and international shame, re-establishing Universal Justice in Spain where its application was exemplary and admired. We will have to learn to say NO to China before they drag us into their more than predictable fall. Our relationship with the giant cannot be a “Facebook friendship”, a euphemism for selling ourselves and selling whatever, including our basic principles.”.
In the coming months the judges of the Constitutional Court will decide, If the reform of universal justice is unconstitutional, which would force the case to be reopened, or on the contrary conclude with the final file; In this last case, going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is the last resort..
End of CAT Press Release
————————————————————————————————–
6th January 2016
PRESS RELEASE (Maximum visibility please)
The Tibet Support Committee (CAT) informs:
Spain's Constitutional Court accepts the Tibet case appeal lodged by the CAT.
Hope remains for the victims and for a judicial system that does not give in to the impunity of the big powers.
After a wait of over a year and a half, the Spanish Constitutional Court has finally accepted the appeal filed by the CAT and co-plaintiffs Thubten Wangchen and the Fundación Casa del Tíbet after the case of the Tibetan genocide was closed in 2014. The Constitutional Court's Fourth Appeal Court considers that "said appeal involves matters of special constitutional relevance (Article 50.1 of the LOTC, Constitutional Court Law) as the possible breach of fundamental law denounced therein could derive from law STC 155/2009; FJ 2 c."
As a result of the Audiencia Nacional's order to issue international arrest warrants against former leaders of the Chinese Communist Party – including Jiang Zemin and Li Peng – in 2013, the Spanish Government went down on its knees under the pressure from Beijing and ended up revoking the law of universal jurisdiction on 10 March 2014. The Tibet case was immediately closed, sparking a chain reaction of closures of other cases (Guantanamo, Stuff, Freedom Fleet against Israeli authorities, Falun Gong, etc.)
In a ruling on 6 May 2015, the Supreme Court ratified the decision to close the case, and it was against this verdict that an appeal was filed in the Constitutional Court, as the plaintiffs believed that the legal revocation of universal jurisdiction breached several precepts of the Spanish Constitution.
José Elias Esteve Moltó, the chief lawyer and author of the Tibet cases, commented: "The Constitutional Court's acceptance of the appeal opens the door once again to hope, not only for the Tibetan victims, but also for other serious conflicts that had been abandoned. What is more, the fact that the judges will debate in depth the controversial cutting of the wings of the law of universal jurisdiction, reopens the debate on whether international law can be relegated to second place, particularly when the domestic legal reform was supported publicly by an autocratic government and justified by a supposed and unquestionable interest of the defence of Spain´s public debt."
Alan Cantos, director of the Tibet Support Committee, declared: "Not only is there now hope that the Tibetan victims and those of other cases will not be left high and dry, but there is also hope that national and international shame will be alleviated, and universal justice will be re-established in Spain, where its application was exemplary and admired. We must learn to say NO to China before they drag us down in their highly predictable decline. Our relationship with the giant cannot be that of "Facebook friends", a euphemism to sell ourselves and to sell anything including our basic principles."
Over the next few months the Constitutional Court judges will decide whether the reform of universal jurisdiction is unconstitutional, which would make it necessary to reopen the case, or whether, on the contrary, the case should be closed definitively, in which case the CAT's only recourse left would be to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
End of the CAT's press release.
