Keep Quiet....Or Your Freedom Might Be In Danger

Things seemed to have gone very quiet concerning the judicial persecution of Baltasar Garzón by the Spanish Supreme Court. It was only to be expected that, following the frenzied activity provoked by his bid to leave Spain and work in the International Criminal Court, that the course of justice would resume the more leisurely pace normally expected of it. However, the end of summer has produced some new developments in two of the three cases brought against the exiled judge.

First of all came the rejection of Garzon's appeal against the conduct of the case against him concerning Franco's victims. Oddly enough, the appeal was heard by exactly the same panel of judges who intend to hear the main case when it comes to court. This highights an interesting factor in the whole situation, the persecution of Garzón is not necessarily being led by the Supreme Court as a whole, it is instead the action of a handful of judges who are seemingly determined to keep the case to themselves. This odd situation meant that the judges could not enter into the arguments presented by Garzón's lawyer for fear of jeopardising their right to hear the main case. So the appeal was dismissed without even being properly considered.

Another strange situation has surfaced in another of the cases against Garzón. This case is the one concerning the allegation that he favoured the Banco de Santander in a case after being sponsored by the same bank during his sabbatical period in New York. The judge investigating this case has clearly not found the evidence he is looking for to sustain the accusation. Faced with the somewhat humiliating prospect of having to drop the case, he has instead opted to get the Guardia Civil to trawl through all of Garzon's financial history in the hope that they come up with something. Its a bit of a desperate measure and very obviously a fishing exercise to try and find anything to bolster a faltering accusation. Garzón undoubtedly earns plenty of money and having his financial history opened to inspection in this way will be embarrassing, regardless of whether it brings up anything relevant to the case against him.

A couple of senior figures in the Supreme Court have recently issued renewed calls for criticism of the court's actions to stop. One senior judge even claimed that such criticism threatens democracy. The difficult relationship that always seems to exist between judges and freedom of expression continues to show itself. Perhaps it has something to do with their tradition? There could be a reasonable case, especially in these times when people who do the job they are supposed to do are having their salaries slashed, for deducting the salary of the judges for all the time they spend on settling scores with their enemies. But then in the situation concerning Garzón that might carry the risk of leaving the señorias without enough money to live on.

Just Because You're Dead Doesn't Mean They're Not Out To Get You

It's been almost a week since I posted on judicial madness, so I think it must surely be time for another episode. The actor Pepe Rubianes intervened in 2007 in the debate concerning the so called "papeles de Salamanca"; the archives which were removed from Cataluña in the aftermath of Franco's victory in the civil war. Rubianes said some things about the mayor of Salamanca which were not very complimentary, the mayor was at the time leading a noisy campaign to retain the archives in Salamanca.

The issue reached the courts, and Rubianes was judged to have offended the good name and honour of the mayor when he called him an idiot and suggested that he should drown in his own shit. From the provincial courts of Salamanca, the case has now reached the Supreme Court which strangely no longer seems quite so busy since Baltasar Garzón was suspended. The court has ratified the sentence with a judgement that is curious for two reasons. One is that they suggest that Rubianes had no right to say what he did because he is not a politician, suggesting that only political professionals are entitled to insult each other. The other curiosity about the decision, and who am I to suggest it may have prejudiced the ability of Rubianes to present his case, is that the actor died over a year ago.

Garzón Chooses Exile Over Suspension

The judicial persecution of Baltasar Garzón is now reaching a crucial phase. The other day, Garzón played what may be his last card before facing trial accused of acting unjustly in his investigation of Franco's repression. With the failure of his, well-founded, challenge to the partiality of judge Luciano Varela, Garzón could see clearly that things were not going his way. So he unveiled a plan to seek a transfer to the International Criminal Court in The Hague where he would act as an advisor. Initially for a few months, with the possibility of a longer extension.

Garzón's intention was not to avoid trial through this move, the case against him does not depend on him continuing to work as a judge in Spain. It was however a pre-emptive move against what looks like being his almost certain suspension from his current post in the Audiencia Nacional. His challenge to Varela, after the latter assisted the far right group of Manos Limpias in preparing their accusation against Garzón, was dealt with very quickly and in a way which suggested that Garzón has no friends at all in the Spanish Supreme Court. A worthy contender for any award for judicial cynicism, the challenge was dismissed on the bizarre grounds that Varela's assistance to those who are out to get Garzón was guaranteeing the rights of the accused!

Then, once Garzón had announced his intention to seek the transfer to The Hague the wheels of justice suddenly started to move bewilderingly fast. Varela issued a whirlwind of decisions and documents including the formal "auto" which officially commits Garzón for trial. This, despite the fact that there are still appeals pending against Varela's decisions from Garzón himself and from state prosecutors who argue that the case has no foundation. It seems fairly clear that Garzón's enemies are determined to see him suspended and are now seeking to prevent him from getting the transfer by fast tracking the accusation against him. Once he is suspended of course, the pace of "justice" will be expected once again to leave most snails looking like boy racers.

So all eyes will now be on the specially convened meeting tomorrow of the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ). This meeting has to consider both the possible suspension of Garzón and his request for a transfer to the ICC; which has already been given the green light by Spain's foreign ministry. What they do will be the true test of the weight of Garzón's many enemies, some of whom occupy comfortable positions on the CGPJ itself. If they deny the transfer request it will be because they want to see him completely out of action, regardless of whether the accusations against him eventually succeed or not. Together with the equally pathetic spectacle created around the Constitutional Court over its verdict on Cataluña's Estatut, we can now say that the Supreme Court is seriously competing to be the most discredited judicial institution in the country. The judges don't seem to care much about that, they want their prey.

If One Fascist Group Should Accidentally Fall

The latest development in the case against Baltasar Garzón for his civil war investigation has been the exclusion of the fascist Falange from the case. For once the judge Luciano Varela got something more or less right when he described the Falange's documentation as mainly consisting of personal and political judgements that had no bearing on legal issues. Sadly, that's a verdict that could easily be applied to the entire case against Garzón, including Varela's own interventions. However, Varela did something very odd before dropping the Falange from the case. Instead of doing what judges would normally do in this situation, simply dismiss the case presented, he gave the fascists a day to adjust their documentation and advised them how to do it. Despite this irregular judicial assistance the Falange still wasn't able to do the job. Garzón's defence has promptly appealed against Varela's handling of this issue, claiming that it shows his lack of impartiality. At the same time the state prosecution service has also presented its arguments rejecting the case against Garzón. None of this is likely to prevent Varela from proceeding with his case, the Supreme Court judges seem determined to bring it to trial based solely on the accusations of the remaining plaintiffs. Despite the absence of the Falange, there are still two very right wing groups sitting on the wall.

Yesterday I attended the demonstration in Madrid organised in support of Garzón and justice for the victims of Franco's repression. It was a beautiful afternoon in Madrid and the route between Cibeles and the Puerta del Sol was a mass of republican flags, placards and photos of some of the victims. The march finished with speeches from various public figures including Pedro Almodóvar, Almudena Grandes and Reed Brody from Human Rights Watch. The speeches were followed by a dignified minute of silence in a packed Puerta del Sol. Below are some of the photos I took during the demonstration.

Contra La Impunidad

With all the attention being focused on the possible trial of Baltasar Garzón, it's easy to forget the issues that lie behind the campaign to defend the judge. The Supreme Court has postponed the issue of which courts are competent to deal with cases concerning Franco's victims until after they have dealt with Garzón. Saturday's protests in Madrid and many other Spanish cities (see the map below from Público) are a reminder of what is at stake.

View Manifestaciones contra la impunidad del franquismo in a larger map

Yo Apoyo A Garzón / I Support Garzón

This post forms part of a simultaneous protest by bloggers against the judicial process that threatens to remove Baltasar Garzón from his position for having opened a case investigating the victims of Franco's repression. The growing campaign against this persecution of Garzón can also be followed on Twitter using the hash tag #apoyoagarzon.

This is not a situation where keeping quiet will help in any way. Garzón is accused of having knowingly exceeded his powers because he opened the lid on the circumstances that led to the death of tens of thousands of victims of Franco's dictatorship. Many of these victims still lie in unmarked graves scattered around Spain. Should he be removed from his position over this issue it will serve as a warning to the rest of the Spanish judiciary from those who seek to prohibit any attempt to come to terms with the past. Ironically, perhaps the Argentinian courts may take the issue further as a case is being presented in that country to investigate what the senior ranks of the Spanish judiciary seek to hide from view.

The way in which the case against Garzón is being handled by the investigating judge, Luciano Varela, is disgraceful. Varela accuses Garzón of having knowingly ignored the amnesty law passed in the 1970's and makes a whole series of unsubstantiated judgements about Garzon's intentions as well as attributing to Garzón judicial resolutions that were not even made by him. In the process of doing this he has committed a far more serious abuse of the judicial process than anything that Garzón could be accused of doing.

Varela systematically ignores international law on the issues affecting the (forcibly) disappeared and those who were subjected to other human rights abuses. Spain is a signatory of the major treaties on these issues and Varela is not entitled to ignore these treaties simply because it doesn't help his case. Additionally, he has rejected all requests by Garzon's lawyer to take testimony on the issues at the heart of the case. That means rejecting evidence from international experts and a point-blank refusal to consider the arguments of other Spanish judges who share Garzon's positions.

Such behaviour on the part of Varela makes it clear that the case against Garzón is not motivated by questions of law. Add to this the likely prospect that the court hearing the case will be headed by a judge who is a patron of the ultra right-wing DENAES (The Foundation for the Defence of the Spanish Nation). As if that isn't already enough, the accusing parties will be a collection of equally right-wing groups; including the fascist Falange. The stage is set for a dangerous judicial farce.

To find a parallel to this situation, you have to imagine a group of German Nazis being allowed to bring a case against a judge who had investigated the activities of Hitler's regime. The tribunal would be presided by someone who had sworn loyalty to that same Nazi regime. It wouldn't happen. It couldn't happen in Germany, but here in Spain that is the situation that is happening now with the case against Baltasar Garzón.

Garzón Could Be 14 Days From Suspension

"Los tratados internacionales válidamente celebrados, una vez publicados oficialmente en España, formarán parte del ordenamiento interno. Sus disposiciones solo podrán ser derogadas, modificadas o suspendidas en la forma prevista en los propios tratados o de acuerdo con las normas generales del Derecho Internacional”.

The word is that the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) will decide whether to suspend Baltasar Garzón from his position as a judge at their meeting due to be held on the 22nd April. This follows the confirmation that the case being prepared by Luciano Varela concerning Garzon's investigation of Franco's repression will proceed to trial. Unless something surprising happens in the next couple of weeks it seems very likely that Garzón will be removed from his post.

I'm not going to rehash here all the reasons behind the decision to allow a collection of ultra right wing groups to take revenge on Garzón, I've already done it before. I just can't help being curious about Varela's arguments. If he argues that Garzón should be put on trial for knowingly ignoring the amnesty law from 1977, then what should happen to those judges like Varela who equally knowingly ignore Spain's obligations under international law? It's a rhetorical question of course, I don't seriously expect either an answer or anything to happen. Oh, the quote at the top of the post? That's nothing important, just something I saw from a document called the Spanish Constitution.

Three People Who Should Not Decide Garzón's Future

The attempt by sectors of the Spanish judiciary to end the career of Baltasar Garzón continues to advance. For the judges of the Supreme Court it wasn't enough that they had already admitted cases against Garzón from the extreme right and some lawyers with a grudge against the owner of the Banco Santander. Something more was needed, especially as the efforts to suggest Garzón was effectively bribed by the Santander to give some lectures in New York have not gone particularly well. Best not to involve foreigners at all, and so the willingness to admit any complaint against the judge now means that none other than Francisco Correa, the principal accused in the Gürtel corruption case, has been allowed to present a new one.

That Correa, who liked to be called Don Vito, should be allowed to join the Garzón witch hunt is an indication of the all comers welcome policy being employed when it comes to nailing Baltasar. Only ETA seem to have been left out of the chase for some reason. Moreover the latest development has caused great excitement within the Partido Popular as it offers the prospect of sympathetic, and overwhelmingly conservative, judges delivering what could be a fatal blow to the progress of Gürtel. The complaint against Garzón over Gürtel concerns the decision to intercept conversations between lawyers and some of the accused, an issue which is also being considered this week by the highest regional court in Madrid. If El País is to be believed the judges in that court are currently inclining towards declaring the interceptions to be illegal.

Such a verdict would seem to justify the action taken against Garzón but the situation is not so simple. The argument behind the interception of these conversations is that some of the lawyers are said to be involved with the accused, especially in the laundering of the proceeds. The legal situation is far from clear and the judge in Madrid who took over the investigation from where Garzón left it regards the interception as being legally justified. As with the case over the victims of Franco's repression, we are left with the curious situation of Garzón being accused of exceeding his powers whilst the other judges who agree with his positions are not accused of doing anything wrong. Such an inconsistent situation, together with the almost simultaneous admission of three separate cases against Garzón, supports the conclusion that what is happening is much more about the man than the details of the cases themselves.

Such a conclusion will of course be strenuously denied by all concerned. The president of the Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ), the judicial governing body, has already spoken out against criticism of the Garzón case. The trouble is that when judges try to stop anyone else commenting on their actions it's almost always because such actions go beyond the run of the mill functioning of the judiciary. Sadly, the same people who now call for judicial independence to be respected did nothing in the face of the determined attempts to sabotage the trial of those accused of perpetrating the Madrid bombings, to name just one recent example. But then such selective criteria brings us to the heart of the problem, one that has been highlighted by Garzón himself in his attempt to prevent the CGPJ from suspending him before he has even been formally accused.

Garzón has challenged the right of three members of the CGPJ to sit in judgement of him, and in the process has spotlighted just how politicised that institution is. First off we have Fernando de Rosa, vice-president of the CGPJ and formerly in charge of justice in the Valencian administration led by Francisco Camps and his very fine suits. De Rosa held a well reported meeting with Camps just after Garzón accused the latter of receiving gifts from Don Vito and friends. After that meeting De Rosa issued a public warning to Garzón not to cross the "red line" in his Gürtel investigation. In other words, the very model of judicial independence. De Rosa has wisely decided to abstain from the meeting that will decide Garzón's future, but he has done so in a way which avoided discussion of the reasons why he should not be present.

Secondly we have Margarita Robles, and here we start to get an understanding of the alliance of convenience between the right wing defenders of the nation on the Supreme Court and some others more commonly associated with the left. Robles served in the administration of Felipe Gonzalez at the same time as Garzón during his very brief political career. In what could be considered his greatest error, Garzón fell into the trap laid by Gonzalez in an attempt to stop the judicial investigation of the GAL case involving government support for a dirty war against ETA. Finally realizing that he was not being offered what he hoped for, Garzón subsequently resumed his career as a judge and took up the GAL case with renewed enthusiasm. This made him many enemies in the Gonzalez administration at the same time as it made him a hero for the Partido Popular and the right-wing press. How times change, but Robles is said to be a close ally of Luciano Varela, who is preparing the case against Garzón for the Supreme Court. Robles has also decided to abstain following the challenge, having been the main mover in favour of immediate suspension for the judge.

Last but by no means least we have judge Gemma Gallego, who has rejected any suggestion that she should not decide on the issue of Garzón keeping his job. Judge Gallego is known above all for being the judge who launched that most ridiculous of judicial processes, the infamous "boric acid" case. She had several senior police officers facing a potential prison sentence over what was nothing more than a set up devised by El Mundo and other supporters of the conspiracy theories over the Madrid bombings. The case, if it deserves such a title, was resoundingly rejected by Garzón who saw through it. But the conspiracy theorists manoeuvred to get it into the hands of Gallego, who did her political duty and got her political reward. It's arguable, after such actions, whether she was fit to continue as a judge at all; but here she is deciding the futures of others on the supreme governing body of the Spanish judiciary. I rest my case your honour.

Garzón's Enemies Sharpen Their Knives

The case against judge Baltasar Garzón over his decision to investigate crimes committed by Franco's regime has moved closer to seeing Garzón suspended from his duties as a judge. Such a suspension would just be the precursor of the judge being put on trial charged with perverting the course of justice. The judicial governing body in Spain, the Consejo General del Poder Judicial, has passed the buck onto prosecutors over whether Garzón should be suspended now, but it seems that the prosecutors are not up for the job. Normally a judge cannot be suspended until a firm accusation has been made and the case is set for trial.

There seems little doubt at the moment that Garzón will end up in court, the investigating judge in the Supreme Court has rejected his last appeal and it looks like the case will end up in the hands of the same court that accepted the original accusation from the far right Manos Limpias. The investigating judge claims that Garzón deliberately disregarded the amnesty law that was passed in 1977 in order to proceed with his investigation. This is a law that the United Nations has previously asked Spain to repeal because it contravenes international conventions signed by the Spanish government.

It wouldn't be fair to say that all of those who are out to get Garzón are just from the political right. The judge who has prepared the case against him for the Supreme Court has always been associated with the more progressive current of the judiciary. What does seem to be the case, though, is that Garzon's decision to open the civil war case has created an alliance of convenience between the most conservative sections of the judiciary and his other enemies, of which he seems to have plenty. The case is being handled in a manifestly unjust way, whilst a fine collection of extreme right wing groups has been assembled to support the accusation, representatives of the victims of Franco's regime are denied the possibility of participating.

At the same time another case claiming that Garzón unjustly favoured the president of the Banco de Santander has been revived even though it's already been previously rejected as unfounded by the Supreme Court. It looks very much a case of trying one thing, and if that fails then going with another. It's going to offer a tremendous image of the Spanish judicial system if Garzón goes to trial. Whilst other countries (of which Brazil is just the latest) deal with those who committed the crimes, in Spain it will be the judge who tried to investigate them that gets put on trial....with the accusation against him presented by those who still carry the standard for the dictatorship. It's a bit of a cliche to say "Spain is different", but in this case?

Another Great Year For Judicial Madness

If we need proof that things don't really change just because the calendar shows a new year, we have as evidence the Spanish Supreme Court. Today this institution was busy dealing with one of the multitude of cases brought by right wing fringe groups whose main objective seems to be to bring an already frail judicial system to a complete halt. The case in question involved the ongoing attempt to prosecute the current Basque president, Patxi Lopez, and his predecessor Juan Jose Ibarretxe for having talked to ETA's political wing during the failed peace process in the region a couple of years ago.

Some sanity prevailed, and the Supreme Court decided that talking to Batasuna as part of an attempt to bring an end to terrorism doesn't constitute a crime. However they did it in a way which suggested that it was right to bring the case against the politicians involved and therefore justifiable that the Supreme Court should rule on such matters. This court has developed a habit of setting precedents which suit its convenience in cases with a political impact. They have what we could call the bankers doctrine which set free the president of Banco Santander when the state prosecutors refused to present a case and there were no individuals directly affected. When the same circumstances have applied to politicians they have reversed this doctrine and allowed cases presented purely for political motives to proceed even though prosecutors argue there is no case to answer.

When a similar attempt was made to prosecute Zapatero for the same "offence" concerning the Basque peace process the court delivered a very sensible ruling that said that the separation of powers doesn't permit judges to assume powers that rightly belong to democratically elected institutions, and that the attempt to negotiate an end to ETA's terrorism belonged to the political sphere. It seems that the same court has now decided that the decision belongs to them instead.

In a similar vein we have the equally crazy case against Baltasar Garzón for having the temerity to open an investigation into the victims of Franco's regime. This act of judicial revenge against Garzón is not only still open but from today it has a new player invited on board - none other than the fascist Falange have been allowed to join the other equally ultra right wing groups that presented the original case against the judge. Garzon's lawyer has been quick off the mark in asking how likely it would be for a German court to permit a neo-nazi group to bring a case against a judge who dared to investigate Nazi crimes. Spain is different on this issue and the judges say the past must stay buried. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this case is that it allows all of these organisations to have access to the data on victims that formed part of Garzon's investigation. So fascist organisations can be handed the personal details on those relatives of Franco's victims who have presented claims. Doesn't sound like justice to me.

Valle De Los Caídos....The Case For Demolition

1). You restore a beautiful wild mountainside that was destroyed by the construction of a brutal, ugly fascist monument. The monument continues to be maintained with public funds.

2). You avoid this.



3). We could have a small scale memorial, appropriate for its surroundings, placed in memory of those political prisoners who died building El Valle de los Caídos.

A Judge On Trial....Manos Limpias Versus Garzón

Spain's most famous judge, Baltasar Garzón, is facing the possibility of having to appear at the other end of the court following the acceptance of a case presented against him. He is accused of prevaricación, an offence which I'm unsure how to translate directly into English but which seems to come down to the deliberate issuing of unjust resolutions. The case has been presented by an organisation known as Manos Limpias, which as the name suggests likes to present itself as fighting against corruption in public life. They have brought the case against Garzón over his unsuccessful attempts to take forward a judicial case concerning the victims of Franco's repression and the thousands of bodies that continue to lie in unmarked roadside graves around the country.

Manos Limpias is in reality an extreme right pseudo trade union which dedicates almost all of its resources and time to clogging up the Spanish courts with a series of cases brought against figures associated with the left or regional nationalist causes. Its leader used to be part of the leadership of the Francoist Fuerza Nueva and it's hardly surprising in this context that they would take offence at Garzon's efforts. This is not the first time they have tried to get Garzón either, far from it. Other targets of the organisation have included Barcelona footballer Samuel Eto'o, Guardia Civil officers who have revealed their homosexuality and last but not least, childrens TV favourites Los Lunnis. I'm not making any of this up.

Most of the cases brought by Manos Limpias don't get very far. However, in this instance it seems that the judge leading the panel studying the accusation against Garzón is an honorary patron of the DENAES (the Foundation for the Defence of the Spanish Nation), another far right organisation which has been critical of any attempts to re-examine the events of the Civil War and the dictatorship. So the case has been put in motion, although it seems that the state prosecution service will not be lending their support to it.

Whether or not Garzón had the right to take the case as far as he did is a controversial legal issue, eventually it was ruled that he was not competent to proceed with the case. Even though his fellow judges ganged up against him to more or less bring an end to the issue, there were still a significant minority of judges who voted against this move. The real target in this case is not necessarily just Garzón, it is a message to any judge who might get the idea that crimes committed under Spain's dictatorship are as worthy of judicial investigation as those committed in countries far from home. That those who attempt to lift the lid on what happened during that period should be subjected to judicial persecution is surreal.

Garzón Throws In The Towel

Baltasar Garzón seems to have abruptly given up in the case he initiated over the victims of Franco's repression. This follows an emergency judicial session held a couple of weeks ago which led to progress on reopening some of the mass graves of the victims being suspended. The judges put aside minor issues such as terrorism cases or the massive Marbella corruption trial to hold their special hearing at the request of prosecutors determined that the case should not go any further. Garzón has now decided the case should be dealt with by local courts in each area. Opinion seems to be split on the move, some observers seem to think it was his only option to keep the issue open, others believe that it will kill the initiative. Where this leaves issues such as the move to open the grave of Federico García Lorca is open to question. The genie is still out of the bottle, and interestingly Garzón has now raised the issue of children who were taken away from their parents and "adopted" by Franco supporters. It's a crime that is not covered by the amnesty law, and raises a clear parallel with similar cases in South America.

The president of the Spanish parliament, Jose Bono, provoked an extraordinary row over his acceptance of a PP proposal to put up a plaque in honour of a nun who was persecuted during the Spanish Civil War. Bono, who would doubtless be horrified at any similar proposal to honour victims of the Republican side in the Congreso, has started a rebellion in the ranks of the PSOE. He was overheard the other day calling his colleagues "hijos de puta", which suggests that the use of the expression is not just confined to Carlos Fabra and the province of Castellón. In the end the proposal had to be dropped. Switching seamlessly to a surreal parallel universe, Esperanza Aguirre claimed last week that her party had nothing to be ashamed of over the past because Franco was a Socialist! So now the truth finally emerges, he started the civil war because the liberal pinkos running the Republican government refused his request to make the Internationale the national anthem. Of course, he moved a tiny bit towards the right in his later years.

Franco On Trial

Judge Baltasar Garzón has decided that his case concerning over 100,000 victims of Franco’s repression can proceed and that he is competent to take it forward. His decision has provoked a hysterical reaction from the right wing media and the Partido Popular, and more seriously is being opposed by the state prosecution service. The judge’s decision opens the way for some of the many mass graves still left in Spain to be opened, including that where it is believed the remains lie of the Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca.

Garzón is arguing that crimes were committed which are not affected either by a statute of limitations or the amnesty law which was passed in the late 1970’s to protect representatives of the dictatorship following the transition to democracy. The state prosecutors intend to challenge him on a number of legal technicalities. Apart from the amnesty law they will challenge the classification of crimes committed by Franco’s regime as crimes against humanity and are said to be even intending to argue that the military uprising that provoked the civil war means that those involved should be subject to military, rather than civil, justice. It’s a headlong clash between the two sides that is set to come up before a court of Garzón´s fellow judges for decision.

The reaction from the political inheritors of Francoism has largely been based around an attempt to ridicule Garzón’s case. The legal formality which requires the certification of the death of Franco and other leading figures of the dictatorship attracted their attention, with Esperanza Aguirre suggesting that Napoleon should also be charged for what his army did in Spain 200 years ago. On the media front El Mundo led the charge against Garzón, who was firmly scratched off their Christmas card list when he got close to destroying the paper’s attempts to promote the “boric acid” case. The same paper published a story the other day featuring some of the few who are still alive who they claimed could potentially be taken to trial. El Mundo portrayed the daily routine of these poor elderly “abuelos” who wanted nothing more than to be left in peace with their daily chupito and a game of dominos down at the local bar. Of course, once you apply the same logic to the Klaus Barbies of this world and the other elderly Nazi war criminals who were painstakingly tracked down, you might start to think more of those who never got near to the chance of enjoying such a peaceful retirement.

How much of the impetus behind the case is down to judge Garzón’s sizeable ego and his attraction to headline making cases? There’s undoubtedly an influence there, but that doesn’t mean that the arguments behind the case presented are necessarily faulty. A situation where human rights abuses could be pursued by Spanish judges if they happened in any country other than Spain is not sustainable. I suspect the case will be eventually thrown out by what is an overwhelmingly conservative judiciary, with legal technicalities masking the political reasoning that ultimately defines the position of most involved. The law of amnesty should in theory at least be vulnerable, it was passed before the Spanish Constitution was approved and in that political atmosphere of the transition where many things were accepted under the ever present threat of renewed intervention by the military. It’s sad to see that many of those who participated in that process end up making a virtue out of the necessity of the moment. The unfinished business of the transition is at least now on public display.

Cinema....Los Girasoles Ciegos

Sticking with a cultural theme it’s been a long, long time since I wrote anything about cinema. This is only partly because I haven’t seen that much to make me want to write about it this year. Spanish cinema seems to save almost all of its main releases for the autumn festivals and prize ceremonies, so the interesting releases before the summer tend to be few and far between. I almost wrote about Todos Estamos Invitados, a film about those inhabitants of the Basque Country who have to live with escorts because they are under threat from ETA. Other things got in the way of that. Then there was Casual Day, with it’s look at the internal politics of a company; but this kind of thing was done much better in my opinion by Smoking Room.

Well things have improved since summer ended and first up is this year’s Spanish candidate for the foreign language Oscar; Los Girasoles Ciegos (The Blind Sunflowers). The cinema is one area where the Spanish Civil War has not been forgotten, this film is set in the aftermath of the war and focuses on the grim realities of life for those who supported the losing side. Based on a book by Alberto Méndez, although in reality the film seems to be an adaptation of only one of the four stories from the book. Directed by Jose Luis Cuerda, it is also the last script written by Rafael Azcona, who sadly died earlier this year before the film was released. Méndez himself died not long after the publication of the book.

One of the principal characters, Elena, is played by Maribel Verdú, who seems to be busier in the last 2-3 years than at any other time in her career. Elena’s husband, Ricardo (played by Javier Cámara), is a republican forced to live in a hidden chamber at the back of the family's house, whilst his wife and young son Lorenzo have to live with the pretence that he died in the war or that he escaped afterwards; depending on who they are dealing with. The couple’s pregnant daughter attempts to escape to Portugal with her fugitive boyfriend. Cámara plays a character with a miserable life, alive but forced to live as a prisoner in his own home with the curtains carefully drawn every time he emerges from his hiding place. It’s better than being dead but could hardly be described as a full life.

Salvador, the predatory priest who becomes obsessed with Elena is played by Raúl Arévalo. He’s still not yet a full priest and is sent by his seminary to teach at the school which Lorenzo attends. When back at the seminary he confesses how tortured he is by his feelings for her, but no sooner is he back in town than he is chasing Maribel all over the place. He uses the pretext of helping her son as an excuse to be with her, and his persistent attention puts the whole façade constructed by the “widow” Elena under intense pressure. In any case our priest is a man with a past, having been a combatant on the fascist side in the Civil War and having led anything but a pure life of spiritual reflection. Not that such things worried the Church very much in those days, and back at school the morning always begins with the priests raising their arms in the fascist salute as they oblige their charges to sing the Falangist anthem Cara al Sol.

For me this was a more effective, natural and personal drama than last year’s Spanish Oscar candidate, Las Trece Rosas. However, some critics have claimed that it fails to capture the full subtlety and atmosphere of the original story, but then you have to find and read the book to make that judgement.

Garzón To Church....Try Again

The Catholic Church in Spain has been given another opportunity to collaborate with the investigation into the whereabouts of the victims of Franco's repression. This follows their initial refusal to help after they received the first request from judge Baltasar Garzón. It gives the organisation an opportunity to demonstrate that all this talk about ethics isn't just for show. Of particular interest is the situation of the Valle de los Caidos, the massive mausoleum and eyesore built into the Sierra de Guadarrama near Madrid. The remains that were brought there following instructions from the dictatorship came from the Republican side too, and Garzón is now seeking access to the documentation held there. Accounts of those with some inside knowledge of this still secretive institution suggest that the human remains brought there were mixed together and are probably difficult to retrieve.

Meanwhile Garzón has now received a list of of over 143,000 names of victims of the repression both during and after the Civil War in Spain. This is not a definitive list, in many provinces the associations who have investigated the issue are still compiling information. The judge has now widened his request to include information on some of those killed by the Republican side. Whether this has been done to try and get the Church to help is unclear, in general the information on these victims is much easier to obtain as they were given full honours by Franco's regime rather than just being left to rot in mass graves. The key moment is still to come, when Garzón has to make a decision on whether there is a case to pursue.

Uncovering Lorca

One consequence of the census of Franco's victims set in motion by Baltasar Garzón could be the exhumation of the remains of the poet Federico García Lorca. The burial place of Lorca, who was executed at the beginning of the Civil War, has been known for some time. It lies between the municipalities of Viznar and Alfacar near to Granada. Despite this, the grave was never opened because members of Lorca's family did not want this to happen. The problem they have now is that Lorca does not have the grave to himself, he was killed as part of a group and relatives of at least one of those buried alongside him are now seeking permission to open the site.

Meanwhile it is becoming clear that a final count of those who were victims of summary executions by Franco's supporters will go way beyond the the estimates of 20-30,000 often given for those who still lie in unmarked graves around Spain. According to a report from El Pais the number of victims identified by different “historical memory” associations could be as high as 130,000. It remains to be seen whether the information provided by other bodies who have received requests from Garzón will have the effect of raising this figure even higher. No wonder so many on the right are nervous about Garzón's initiative, as the full extent of the killing becomes clearer.

Church To Garzón....Go To Hell

As it's Sunday it seems like a good day to examine the response of the Catholic Church to Baltasar Garzón's request to help in constructing the census of those who disappeared or were executed during or after the Civil War. Garzón directed his request to the Conferencia Episcopal, which is the assembly of Spain's Catholic bishops. You might have though that it was a good place to start, after all the hierarchy existing within the church would then ensure that orders were passed from each bishop to the individual parishes under their control to ensure that any information they possess was passed on.

Well no, the Conferencia Episcopal has instead decided not to collaborate, the bishops claim that their assembly is not the competent organism to carry out the task. Apparently, when it comes to uncovering some of their darkest secrets the bishops suffer a sudden loss of authority and are unable to issue any instructions. The aim is clearly to try and make Garzón's task as difficult as possible by forcing the judge to direct his request to thousands of individual parishes.

It's interesting, in the light of those who claim that the judge is “reopening the wounds of the past”, to take a look at the church's attitude to Franco's regime. I may be wrong but I have the feeling that this is the same organisation that holds regular and lavish martyrdom fests in St Peter's Square in Rome, where praise is heaped upon carefully selected religious victims of the war. One was held only last year. You would imagine that this would have Mariano Rajoy, Manuel Fraga and company protesting for raising the ghosts of the past? Instead of protesting, they put on their Sunday best and catch the first flight to Rome. Or how about those plaques on so many church walls that commemorate the Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera? It's not just a case of the transition to democracy being insufficient, in the case of some institutions it's as if it never happened.

Garzón Breaches The Wall Of Silence

A suitably heavyweight topic to mark what Blogger tells me is my 500'th post on this blog. No sooner has everyone returned from their holidays than judge Baltasar Garzón has grabbed national attention with his move to assemble a census of information on the victims of Franco's regime. The request by Garzón marks the beginning of a process which will determine whether there is a case to be pursued on the grounds of genocide. Several town halls in major cities have been requested to provide information they possess on those who were summarily executed or who simply disappeared without trace. The same request has also been made to the Church, which holds much of the data as well as having been an active and keen collaborator with Franco's regime.

The estimates of those from the Republican side who remain buried in unmarked graves around the country is generally put at around 25-30000. However, the number of victims of reprisals by Franco's regime is estimated at a much higher figure, Garzón's move should hopefully ensure that the available data on those who were killed is at last united. It is something that has been commented on ever since Garzón himself sought the extradition of General Pinochet, how can Spain actively take up cases concerning the disappeared in South America if it doesn't do the same with those who have never been accounted for here in Spain?

The reaction from the political right to Garzón's move has been utterly predictable. Partido Popular leader Mariano Rajoy reacted with the now traditional cliché about not reopening the wounds of the past. This popular right wing argument is always wheeled out when reference is made to Franco's victims, those who use it are not shy of coming to the defence of Franco's regime when it suits them or of fighting to maintain the public symbols of that regime. The dictatorship buried and honoured their dead, those whose political roots lie in that same regime have always argued that the dead on the other side should simply be forgotten. El Mundo led the charge against Garzón yesterday to such an extent that his fellow judges in the Audiencia Nacional came out publicly in his defence.

Once again the issue puts the spotlight onto the question of just how model a transition Spain really had from dictatorship to democracy. An implicit pact of silence during 30 years of democracy has meant that the mass graves lie largely untouched even though many of them are common knowledge in the nearby villages or towns. Much of the work that has been done to excavate some of these sites has been carried out by volunteers. An interesting piece by Jesús Maraña in Público at the weekend described quite well the unbalanced nature of the transition as agreements were reached under the ever present threat of military intervention if democracy looked like going too far. That the constitution and political arrangements resulting from that process should now be regarded as untouchable makes no sense. There is unfinished business, something that the case Garzón has opened demonstrates very clearly. Whether or not this case eventually proceeds, the census of Franco's victims marks a historical turning point.

Nice Palace, Where Did You Get It?

A wedding took place last Friday at the Pazo de Meirás in Galicia. What made the event newsworthy was that the bride was the great granddaughter of Franco, and the Pazo forms part of the dead dictator’s family fortune. The palace was a gift to Franco as a result of the local authorities organising a “voluntary” popular subscription to buy it, and it became the summer residence of the Franco family. The grounds were found to be a bit small for such a grand dictator, so it then became necessary to expropriate additional land surrounding the palace. It seems that those who were unwilling to surrender their land were threatened with being sent to Asturias! I can think of much worse alternatives to having to live next door to a fascist dictator, but I suspect the exile probably wouldn’t have included a lifetime’s supply of cider and fabada.

More recently the Xunta, Galicia’s regional government, have been trying to inspect the property with the intention of declaring it to be a Bien de Interés Cultural; a historic monument. This move has met with open opposition from the Franco family as it would compel them to open the property to the public for a certain number of days every month. Eventually, the Xunta’s inspectors were able to gain access to the property but the holding of last week’s wedding has been widely seen as the Franco family asserting their control over the property. It’s a curious situation, if the King of Spain is given a present then that passes to the state, but the family of a dictator is allowed to hold on forever to a property which in theory was presented to Franco as (illegitimate) head of state. It more or less confirms what we could probably call the Pinochet Principle whereby self appointed “saviours of the nation” always seem to find time to assure that being a saviour brings with it substantial economic benefits which are not always available to more conventional rulers. The spoils of war.