_
buried Hearing the case against the dictatorship and refers to the law memory
JOSÉ Yoldia
The resolution endorses the Garzón investigation to create a census of victims
The High Court yesterday issued a resolution giving the cause cerrojazo opened by Judge Baltasar Garzon against General Francisco Franco and 44 other members of their Governments whom he accused of "crimes against the Nation Senior Organizations and form of government" and of "illegal detention forced disappearance of persons" in a framework of "crimes against humanity."
Recovery of Historical Memory
DEPTH
The judges said the lack of competition objective Garzon of the National Court to investigate crimes of the Franco regime to understand that the military uprising of 17 and 18 July 1936 , which triggered the Civil War, did not constitute a crime against the Nation Senior Organizations and form of government, but a crime of rebellion. The crime of rebellion never has jurisdiction of the Court.
Therefore, 13 of the 17 judges who make up the heart of the Chamber, said "annul all acts and decisions of the court after October 16, 2008, in which the judge had jurisdiction to investigate facts.
In a highly technical decision, the Court validated the action taken by the judge prior to that date, as the data request to the Government and the Catholic Church to develop a census of the victims, considering that it comes to prevention measures. However, all subsequent overrides, including the order of 18 November in which the judge declared the termination of the criminal responsibility of the dictator and his ministers to be aware of his death and which was inhibited in favor of territorial courts to investigate the facts.
The full Penal Chamber warns that its resolution "does not affect the legitimate rights of victims of the Civil War-all-and the dictatorship of General Franco to recover the remains of their loved ones, dignify and honor their memory, recognized in the legislation, including the "Law for the Recovery of Historical Memory."
The court squarely into the incident of competition posed by the prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, but excludes decide on matters concerning the statute of limitations on the applicability or otherwise of the Amnesty Act or whether the facts sought to investigate were circumstantial accredited and if so if they constituted crimes and if there were people responsible for them.
Judge Javier Martínez Lázaro has developed a concurring opinion in which he agrees that the crimes of the Franco have the "appearance" of crimes against humanity, but the death of their authors determined the incompetence of the hearing. Lázaro Martínez believes that the criminal proceedings can not be a means to build the historical truth about serious crimes never subjected to judicial investigation, but nevertheless, it does not imply the absence of any legal protection for victims and recognizes the right of injured parties to open the graves.
The dissenting believe that another country can prosecute the crimes committed
The three judges of the Court that have diverged from the majority say the judge Baltasar Garzon had jurisdiction to investigate crimes of the Franco regime and the "lame attitude" of the English court opens the door to prosecuting such crimes now can any other country, as Spain has done with the dictatorships of various Latin American states.
Judges José Ricardo de Prada, Clara Bayarri and Ramón Sáez Valcárcel emphasize the "historical significance" of the case because it "made more serious criminal implications" before the English courts. And competition Garzón justify that in addition to the killing and burial of war continues to ignore the fate of thousands of people shot and where their bodies were hidden and the whereabouts of 30,000 children abducted from their mothers in prisons and the the lost children of the Republic.
dissidents against the tax charged for "abuse of process" by not saying what the judge would not be competent Garzón and acted on it because it was his understanding valid or validated. The link of competition you see in the crime against the nation's highest bodies of the present Organic Law of Judicial Power and do not share that were a crime of military rebellion. Conclude by claiming that if it were a denial of justice, could determine the "English State's international responsibility." _
The Court does not investigate the Franco because he does not compete on ...
La Vanguardia -
The NA believes that Garzón had to wait to open graves
La Opinión de Tenerife -
The Court said that there was never charged in the case of Franco
ABC.es -
The High Court left open the door to the pursuit of ...
Basque Journal -
_ _
0 comments:
Post a Comment