![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In 2021, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) held Spain responsible for violations of Articles 14(1), 14(5) and 15 (1) of the ICCPR in the Garzón v Spain case. The purposes of this article are three-fold. Firstly, it provides an analysis of the ‘Francoism’ case and the ‘Gürtel’ case, the two trials held by the Spanish Supreme Court (SSC) against Judge Garzón, which the HRC declared were ‘arbitrary and did not comply with the principles of judicial independence and impartiality’, and an assessment of their political and legal aftermaths. Secondly, it assesses the dim prospects for Spain complying with the HRC’s views on the Garzón case by providing an updated and comprehensive statistical account of Spain’s extremely low record of compliance with previous HRC’s decisions. Thirdly, it provides an analysis of the new opportunities for judicial enforceability in cases of non-compliance by Spain with the views of the HRC in the wake of the SSC’s landmark judgement on the González Carreño v. Spain case and subsequent case law. The conclusion considers the enhanced potential role of domestic courts in fostering the enforceability of decisions by quasi-adjudicatory human rights bodies both in Spain and in the light of the Spanish experience.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to H.E. Elisa Perez-Vera, formerly Judge in the Spanish Constitutional Court for pointing out relevant case law of the Constitutional Court and to Profs. Valentín Bou and Joaquín Alcaide for helpful references to research materials in Spanish as well as to Prof. Philip Alston for his encouragement. He is also grateful to Mr. David Barnes, Mr. Shi Weimin and Ms. Mohan Chen for their editorial assistance. The usual caveat applies
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Baltasar Garzón v. Spain, HRC, Communication no. 2844/2016 (August 25, 2021) (‘Decision’). At the time of the original submission, 30 June 2022, no official translation into English of the Human Rights Committee’s Communication no. 2844/2016 (Baltasar Garzón v. Spain) had been published. All translations correspond to the author except if otherwise indicated. See also Laura Cesaro, Baltasar Garzón v. Spain, ICCPR Digest https://ccprcentre.org/decision/17197 (accessed June 28, 2022).
2 Human Rights in Practice, ‘Garzón vs Spain: UNCHR Declares the Case Admissible’, February 6, 2020, https://www.rightsinpractice.org/new-blog/2020/2/6/garzn-v-spain-case-before-unhrc-declared-admissible (accessed June 28, 2022).
3 The criminal type of ‘prevaricación judicial’ defined in Art. 446.3 of the Spanish Criminal Code as that which occurs when a judge or magistrate ‘knowingly delivers an unfair judgement or ruling’ has been variously translated in English as ‘gross judicial misconduct,’ ‘misuse of judicial powers,’ judicial ‘criminal malfeasance’, ‘perversion of justice’ and ‘knowing abuse of authority,’ among others.
4 Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), ‘Baltasar Garzón trials were arbitrary and failed to comply with principles of judicial independence and impartiality - UN Committee’, August 26, 2021, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/08/baltasar-Garzón-trials-were-arbitrary-and-failed-comply-principles-judicial (accessed June 28, 2022).
5 Ley 52/2007, de 26 de diciembre, por la que se reconocen y amplían derechos y se establecen medidas en favor de quienes padecieron persecución o violencia durante la guerra civil y la dictadura (B.O.E. 2007, 22296) (Spain).
6 Decision, see note 1, 5.7 and by extension 5.8.
7 Decision, see note 1, 5.10.
8 Decision, see note 1, 5.13- 17.
9 Decision, see note 1, 5.12.
10 See e.g. Peter Burbridge, ‘Waking the Dead of the Spanish Civil War: Judge Baltasar Garzón and the Spanish Law of Historical Memory’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 9, no. 3 (2011): 753–81; Naomi Roht-Arriaza, ‘The Spanish Civil War, Amnesty, and the Trials of Judge Garzón’, American Society of International Law Insight, July 25, 2012, https://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/insight120725.pdf (accessed June 28, 2022); Amane Gogorza and Marion Lacaze, ‘Chronique de droit pénal espagnol. La loi, le juste et le juge face au franquisme: Réflexions à partir de la décision du Tribunal suprême espagnol’, Revue internationale de droit pénal 83, no. 3 (2012): 567.
11 Burbridge, see note 10, 778–9.
12 See nonetheless e.g. International Commission of Jurists, ‘Spain: Supreme Court should act quickly to reinstate Judge Baltasar Garzón following UN Human Rights Committee decision’, August 30, 2021, https://www.icj.org/spain-supreme-court-should-act-quickly-to-reinstate-judge-baltasar-Garzón-following-un-human-rights-committee-decision/ (accessed June 28, 2022).
13 OHCHR, see note 4.
14 UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, ‘Report on Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judges’ (‘Report’), October 15, 2020, https://independence-judges-lawyers.org/reports/report-on-disciplinary-proceedings-against-judges (accessed June 28, 2022).
15 González Carreño v. Spain, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Communication no. 47/2012 (July 16, 2014).
16 S.T.S., July 17, 2018 (R.J., No. 1263) (Spain).
17 OHCHR, see note 4.
18 Viljam Engström, ‘Spanish Supreme Court Bringing UN Treaty Bodies One Step Closer to International Courts?’, I·CONnect, August 22, 2018, http://www.iconnectblog.com/2018/08/spanish-supreme-court-bringing-un-treaty-bodies-one-step-closer-to-international-courts/ (accessed June 28, 2022).
19 A third trial of Garzón before the Spanish Supreme Court is known as the ‘Santander Bank/NYU case.’ It involved alleged corruption of Judge Garzón due to some courses sponsored by Santander Bank organised by the King Juan Carlos Centre at New York University that he had taught during a leave for study in 2005 and 2006. On February 13, 2012, the complaint was filed by the investigating judge after not having found evidence of corruption or other crimes and considering that, in any event, the alleged crime of ‘improper bribery’ (cohecho impropio) was prescribed. See Antonio Cuerda Riezu, ‘Estaria de acuerdo con lo que dice el Tribunal Supremo … si no lo dijera el Tribunal Supremo. La condena contra el Juez Garzón por delito de prevaricación’, Revista espanola de Derecho constitucional 99 (2013): 287, 291.
20 See e.g. Machiko Kanetake, ‘María de los Ángeles González Carreño v. Ministry of Justice, Judgment No. 1263/2018, Supreme Court of Spain, July 17, 2018’, American Journal of International Law 113, no. 3 (2019): 586.
21 General Council of the Judiciary, ‘What is the National High Court?’, https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/en/Judiciary/National-High-Court/Institutional-information/What-is-the-National-High-Court-/ (accessed June 28, 2022).
22 RTVE, ‘Las cifras de la barbarie de ETA: más de 850 asesinatos, 2.600 heridos y casi 90 secuestrados’ [The atrocities data: more than 850 people were murdered, 2600 people were injured, nearly 90 people were kidnapped], October 20, 2021, 09:37 am, https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20211020/cifras-barbarie-eta-mas-850-asesinatos-2600-heridos-casi-90-secuestrados/2195448.shtml (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
23 See further e.g. Omar G. Encarnacion, ‘Democracy and Dirty Wars in Spain’, Human Rights Quarterly 29, no. 4 (2007): 950.
24 See e.g. Ignacio de la Rasilla, ‘The Swan Song of Universal Jurisdiction in Spain’, International Criminal Law Review 9, no. 5 (2009): 777.
25 Maria del Carmen Marquez Carrasco and Joaquin Alcaide Fernandez, ‘In re Pinochet. Spanish National Court, Criminal Division (Plenary Session) Case 19/97, November 4, 1998; Case 1/98, November 5, 1998’, American Journal of International Law 93, no. 3 (1999): 690, 692.
26 Naomi Roht-Arriaza, The Pinochet Effect Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005).
27 Daniel Rothenberg, ‘Let Justice Judge: An Interview with Judge Baltasar Garzón and Analysis of His Ideas’, 24 Human Rights Quarterly 24(2002): 924, 945.
28 S.A.N., April 19, 2005 (R.J., No. 16) (Spain). Alicia Gil Gil, ‘La sentencia de la Audiencia Nacional en el Caso Scilingo’, Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología 7, no. 1 (2005).
29 S.T.S., October 1, 2007 (R.J., No. 798) (Spain).
30 See e.g. Steven Marsh, ‘Interrogations of Justice: The Case of Baltasar Garzón’, Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies 3 (2002): 125.
31 See Baltasar Garzón Home Page, https://baltasargarzon.org/en/home/.
32 International Legal Office for Cooperation and Development Home Page, https://www.ilocad.info.
33 David F. Uriegas, Baltasar Garzon: El caso de Julian Assange, Noviembre 30, 2022 https://www.revistaabogacia.com/baltasar-garzon-el-caso-de-julian-assange/
34 Roht-Arriaza, see note 10.
35 See e.g. Rafael Escudero, ‘Road to Impunity: The Absence of Transitional Justice Programs in Spain’, Human Rights Quarterly 36(2014): 123, 127.
36 Ley 52/2007, see note 5, Preamble.
37 Id., Art. 20.
38 Id., Art. 15.
39 Id., Seventh Additional Provision, in vigor until December 2011.
40 Josep M. Tamarit Sumalla, Historical Memory and Criminal Justice in Spain. A Case of Late Transitional Justice (Intersentia: 2013).
41 See further e.g. Burbridge, see note 10, 761–70.
42 Audiencia Nacional, Pleno de la Sala de lo Penal, Procedimiento Ordinario 34/08 del Juzgado Central de Instrucción no 5, Cuestión de incompetencia expediente no 34/08, Auto (Decision of November 7, 2008).
43 e.g. José Yoldi, ‘Garzón atribuye a Franco un plan de exterminio sistemático de los “rojos”’, El Pais, October 17, 2008, https://elpais.com/diario/2008/10/17/espana/1224194401_850215.html (accessed June 28, 2022).
44 Spanish Criminal Code Art. 446.3. See note 3.
45 S.T.S., February 27, 2012 (R.J., No.101) (Spain).
46 Id. See e.g. Tamarit Sumalla, note 44, 119–63.
47 See Roht-Arriaza, note 30. Also see Gogorza and Lacaze, note 10.
48 S.T.S., see note 49.
49 Id.
50 See e.g. Daniel Vallès Muñío, ‘El TEDH no cuestiona la Ley de la Memoria Histórica, pero podría.. Comentario de la STEDH de 4 de noviembre de 2014, caso Ruiz-Funes contra España’, InDret 4, no. 1(2015) (Spain).
51 Ley 46/77 de 15 de octubre de Amnistia also extended amnesty to public agents and officials in Franco’s regime who had committed human rights violations in the course of investigating and prosecuting ‘political-related crimes. See Ley 46/1977, de 15 de octubre, de Amnistía (B.O.E. 1977, 24937) (Spain), Art.2 f.
52 The UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Concluding observations on the report submitted by Spain under article 29, paragraph 1, of the Convention, CED/C/ESP/CO/1 (December 12, 2013), 11–12.
53 Rep. of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances Addendum Mission to Spain, A/HRC/27/49/Add.1 (July 2, 2014)
54 Rep. of the Special Rapporteur on The Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence Pablo de Greiff Mission to Spain, A/HRC/27/56/Add.1 (July 24, 2014), at 65 and at 74.
55 HRC, Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Spain, CCPR/C/ESP/CO/6 (August 14, 2015), 21.
56 For different moments in this evolution see e.g. Madeleine Davis, ‘Is Spain Recovering its Memory? Breaking the Pacto del Olvido’, Human Rights Quarterly 27 (2005): 858. See e.g. also Teresa Godwin Phelps, ‘Truth Delayed: Accounting for Human Rights Violations in Guatemala and Spain’, Human Rights Quarterly 36 (2014): 820.
57 La Moncloa, ‘Aprobado un Real Decreto-Ley que modifica la Ley de Memoria Histórica para la exhumación y traslado del dictador Franco del Valle de los Caídos’, August 24, 2018, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/Paginas/enlaces/240818_rdmemoriahistorica.aspx (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
58 RTVE, ‘Exhumación de Franco’, October 24, 2019, www.rtve.es/noticias/exhumacion-franco/ (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
59 La Moncloa, ‘Proyecto de Ley de Memoria Democrática [Democratic Memory Act]’, July 20, 2021, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/Paginas/enlaces/200721-enlace-memoria.aspx (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
60 Comite contra la Desaparicion Forzada, Observaciones finales sobre la informacion complementaria presentada por Espana con arreglo del articulo 29, parrafo 4, de la Convencion, at 3 (27 Sept. 2021).
61 Ley 20/2022, de 19 de octubre, de Memoria Democrática, Boletin Oficial del Estado, núm. 252, de 20/10/2022. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2022-17099
62 Decision, see note 1, 5.7 and by extension 5.8.
63 Id., 5.5.
64 Id., 5.10.
65 Id.
66 Id., 5.9.
67 Id.
68 Id.
69 Cuerda Riezu, see note 23, 298.
70 Id., 299.
71 Id., 299.
72 S.T.S., February 9, 2012 (R.J., No. 29) (Spain).
73 Id.
74 Roht-Arriaga, see note 10.
75 e.g. Abraham Barrero Ortega, ‘Garzón, un juez ante el Supremo, Cuestiones Constitucionales’, Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional 27 (2012): 385.
76 Cuerda Riezu, see note 23, 324.
77 Julio M. Lazaro, ‘El Supremo rechaza el recurso de nulidad de Garzón contra su condena’, El Pais, March 23, 2012, https://elpais.com/politica/2012/03/23/actualidad/1332506711_271460.html (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
78 RTVE, ‘El Constitucional deniega a Garzón el amparo contra su condena por las escuchas de Gürtel’, November 7, 2012, https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20121107/constitucional-deniega-garzon-amparo-contra-su-condena-escuchas-gurtel/573400.shtml (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
79 Roht-Arriaza, see note 30.
80 S.A.N., May 24, 2018 (R.J., No.20); Poderjudicial, ‘La Audiencia Nacional condena a penas de hasta 51 años de prisión a 29 de los 37 acusados en el “caso Gürtel”’, May 24, 2018, https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Audiencia-Nacional/Noticias-Judiciales/La-Audiencia-Nacional-condena-a-penas-de-hasta-51-anos-de-prision-a-29-de-los-37-acusados-en-el--caso-Gurtel- (Spain) (accessed June 28, 2022).
81 Decision, see note 1, 5.7 and by extension 5.8.
82 Id., 5.8.
83 Id.
84 Id., 15.1.
85 ICCPR Art.15. 1.
86 Decision, see note 1, 5.16.
87 Id., 5.17.
88 Id.
89 Id., 7.
90 Id.
91 Human Rigths in Practice, Communication addressed to the Special Rapporteur on the Follow-up of Views, United Nations Human Rights Committee, 19th July 2022 https://www.rightsinpractice.org/new-blog/2022/7/19/submission-on-non-implementation-of-garzon-v-spain-decision
92 OHCHR, Human Rights Committee Adopts Reports on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations Concerning Belarus, Estonia, the Netherlands and Tajikistan, and on Follow-Up to Views Concerning Angola, Czechia, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Spain, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, 23rd February 2023 https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2023/03/human-rights-committee-adopts-reports-follow-concluding-observations-concerning
93 Rep. of the Human Rights Committee 129th session (29 June–24 July 2020) 130th session (12 October–6 November 2020) 131st session (1–26 March 2021), A/76/40 (August 31, 2021).
94 Id., 3.
95 HRC, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. Adopted on 29 March 2004 (2187th meeting), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (May 26, 2004).
96 HRC, General Comment No. 33: Obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR/C/GC/33 (June 25, 2009), 13.
97 Id., 15.
98 Ludovic Hennebel, ‘The Human Rights Committee’, in The United Nations and Human Rights. A Critical Appraisal, 2nd ed., Frédéric Mégret and Philip Alston (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 367.
99 Kate Fox Principi, ‘Implementation of decisions under treaty body complaints procedures – Do states comply? How do they do it?’, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right Treaty Bodies Branch, January 2017, 13.
100 Hennebel, see note 98, 367.
101 Fox Principi, see note 100, 9.
102 Human Rights Committee, Rules of Procedure and Working Methods https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/ccpr/rules-procedure-and-working-methods
103 OHCHR, Spain, https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/spain (and UN Human Rights Bodies, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=62&Lang=EN
104 See UN Treaty Body Database, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=62&Lang=EN.
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 Carmen Montesinos Padilla and Itziar Gómez Fernández, ‘Strategies for Compliance with Non-Binding International Decisions: The Spanish Case Hors-série’, Revue Québécoise de Droit International 94(2021): 87.
109 This data updates the latest global statistical survey of individual complaints before the HRC until March 2016. Since then and until May 2023 the HRC has released 14 new decisions, 8 of which were decisions of inadmissibility and 6 decisions on the merits, 5 of which found breaches by Spain. Jurisprudential database for Spain is available here https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en (last visited 3 May 2023) The 8 new decisions of inadmissibility are: 1) Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2831/2016. CCPR/C/123/D/2831/2016 (M.A.K. v Spain); 2) Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3085/2017. CCPR/C/127/D/3085/2017 (Z.B.E v Spain). 3) Decision adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No.2890/2016. CCPR/C/129/D/2890/2016 (M.R.S. v Spain); 4) Decision adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3778/2020. CCPR/C/130/D/3778/2020 (M.J.B.B. et al. v Spain); 5) Decision adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3599/2019 CCPR/C/130/D/ 3599/2019 (F.A.J. et al. v Spain); 6) Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3639/2019.CCPR/C/130/3639/2019 (E.I.G.R. v Spain). 7) CCPR/C/130/D/3810/2020 (F.E.C. v Spain) 8) Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2558/2015 CCPR/C/131/D/2558/2015 (M.I.A.P. v Spain)
Second, breaches by Spain were found in 1) Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No 2657/2015, CCPR, 2019, UN Doc CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015. (‘Gorka-Joseba Lupiañez Mintegi v Spain’) 2) (Baltasar Garzon v Spain) supra note 3) Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2996/2017 CCPR 2021, (José Antonio Sainz de la Maza y del Castillo v Spain) 4) Dictamen aprobado por el Comité a tenor del artículo 5, párrafo 4, del Protocolo Facultativo, respecto de la comunicación núm. 3297/2019 CCPR/C/135/D/3297/2019 (Oriol Junqueras et al.v Spain) 5) Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3102/2018 CCPR/C/136/D/3102/2018 (Jesús María Hermosilla Barrio v Spain) Finally, no breach by Spain was found in: Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2541/2015. ICCPR/C/126/D/2541/2015 (María Dolores Martín Pozo v. Spain);
110 See Valentín Bou Franch, ‘Las comunicaciones individuales contra España presentadas en el comité de derechos humanos y su incidencia en el derecho español’, in Los Efectos Juridicos En Espana De Las Decisiones De Los Organos Internacionales De Control En Materia De Derechos Humanos De Naturaleza No Jurisdiccional, ed. Carlos Fernandez de Casadevante Romani (Dykinson: 2020), 17, 40.
111 Id., 40. Also, views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2996/2017 CCPR 2021,(José Antonio Sainz de la Maza y del Castillo v Spain).
112 Id., 40–4.
113 HRC, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to Equality Before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial, CCPR/C/GC/32 (October 17. 2007), 45–51.
114 HRC, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Spain, CCPR/C/ESP/CO/6 (August 14, 2015), 24.
115 Bou Franch, see note 110, 43–44.
116 Bou Franch, see note 110, 53–57.
117 HRC, Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No 2657/2015, CCPR/C/125/D/2657/2015 (August 9, 2019).
118 CAT, Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, concerning communication No 818/2017, CAT/C/68/D/818/2017 (January 15, 2020).
119 Bou Franch, see note 110, 44–7.
120 Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 3102/2018 CCPR/C/136/D/3102/2018 (Jesús María Hermosilla Barrio v Spain)
121 Dictamen aprobado por el Comité a tenor del artículo 5, párrafo 4, del Protocolo Facultativo, respecto de la comunicación núm. 3297/2019 CCPR/C/135/D/3297/2019 (Oriol Junqueras et al.v Spain). https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f135%2fD%2f3297%2f2019&Lang=en
122 Hennebel, see note 98, 367.
123 Ley Orgánica 7/2015, de 21 de julio, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial [Organic Law 7/2015, of 21 July, amending Organic Law 6/1985, of 1st July, on the Judiciary, ‘Organic Law 7/2015’], July 21, 2015, (B.O.E. 2015, 8167) (Spain).
124 Montesinos Padilla and Gómez Fernández, see note 108.
125 One example of this is related to the ‘double criminal instance,’ which was behind the reform of Spain’s Criminal Procedural Law in 2015.
126 Bou Franch, see note 110, 53.
127 Naciones Unidas Asamblea General, Informe del CDH, vol. 1, Sup. no. 40 (A/66/40), Nueva York, 2011, 190.
128 Bou Franch, see note 110.
129 For example, in its judgment No. 70/2002 (Legal Basis 7),19 the Spanish Constitutional Court (SCC) not only rejected jurisdictional powers to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) but also refused to consider its resolutions as genuine interpretations of the ICCPR.
130 See Bou Franch, note 110, 53–7.
131 S.T.S., July 17, 2018 (R.J., No. 1263) (Spain).
132 Concepcion Escobar Hernandez, ‘Sobre la problematica determinacion de los efectos juridicos internos de los dictamenes adoptados por comites de derechos humanos. algunas reflexiones a la luz de la sts 1263/2018, de 17 de julio’, Revista Espanola de Derecho Internacional 71 (2019): 241, 244.
133 González Carreño v. Spain, see note 15.
134 In particular of Arts. 2(a) and (f), 5(a) and 16(1)(d) in combination Art. 1 and its General Recommendation No.19. In 2020 there was a second case: CEDAW, Decision adopted by the Committee under Art. 4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol, Concerning Communication No. 138/2018, CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 (February 28, 2020).
135 CEDAW, Concluding observations on the combined seventh and eight periodic reports of Spain, CEDAW/C/ESP/CO/7-8 (July 24, 2015). See further Ruth Abril Stoffels, ‘The “effectiveness” of CEDAW Committee Decisions: Angela Gonzalez Carreño v. Spain’, Spanish Yearbook of International Law 19 (2016): 365, 370–2.
136 See Kanetake, note 24, 588.
137 S.T.S., see note 129.
138 Id., 23.
139 Id., 28.
140 See C. Gutiérrez Espada, ‘La aplicación en España de los dictámenes de comités internacionales: la STS 1263/2018, un importante punto de inflexión’, Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 10 (2018): 836.
141 Ministerio de Igualdad, Delegación del Gobierno contra la Violencia de Género, https://violenciagenero.igualdad.gob.es/violenciaEnCifras/victimasMortales/fichaMujeres/home.htm and Epdata, ‘Epdata, Violencia de género - datos y estadísticas’, https://www.epdata.es/datos/violencia-genero-estadisticas-ultima-victima/109/espana/106.
142 See in particular Fernandez de Casadevante Romani ed., see note 110.
143 See e.g. Escobar Hernandez, see note 130.
144 Jorge Cardona Llorens, The Legal Value of the Views and Interim Measures Adopted by United Nations Treaty Bodies (A Response to the Opinions of E. Jimenez Pineda, C. Jiménez Sánchez and B. Vázquez Rodríguez), Spanish Yearbook of International law 23 (2019): 146.
145 To these, one should add more recently regarding a decision by the Committee Against Torture, Sentencia 1804 de la Audiencia Nacional de 27 de Abril de 2022. For a commentary, see Alberto Delfin Arrufat Cardava, sobre la automaticidad de la responsabilidad patrimonial ante el silencio negativo de la Administración por el incumplimiento de dictamenes emitidos por el Comité contra la Tortura: la Sentencia 1804 de la audiencia nacional de 27 de abril de 2022, Crónica de Derecho internacional público, Revista Electronica de Estudios Internacionales 44 (2022):40.
146 Jaques Hachuel Moreno, Communication No. 1381/2005: Human Rights Committee, 90th Session, 9–27 July 2007: Views, CCPR/C/90/D/1381/2005 (September 11, 2007).
147 S.T.S., February 12, 2020 (R.J., No. 401) (Spain). See Beatriz Vazquez, Rodriguez, ‘La Sts (Sala Especial) 1/2020, De 12 De Febrero: ¿es el el recurso de revision una via util para dotar de efectividad a los dictamenes adoptados por los comites de derechos humanos?’, Revista Espanola de Derecho Internacional 73 (2021): 353.
148 Id., F.D. 6
149 Id., F.D. 5
150 S.A.N., July 1, 2021 (R.J., No.3080).
151 Id.
152 Report, see note 14, 2.
153 Id., 96.
154 For its early development in the 1980s, María del Pilar Hernández, ‘El principio de igualdad en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional Español (como valor y como principio en la aplicacion jurisdiccional de la ley)’, Boletin Mexicano de Derecho Comparado 81(1994): 693.
155 S.T.C., February 28, 2011, FJ 3, (No. 13) (Spain). Also of note is that the S.T.S, in its Judgment No. 140/2018, redirected to Art. 96 S.C. the constitutional foundation that legitimizes the ‘conventionality control’ by Spanish courts thus paving a new path for judicial control of general compliance by Spain of its international human rights obligations’. S.T.S., December 20, 2018 (No. 140). Montesinos Padilla and Gómez Fernández, see note 108, 95.
156 HRC, see note 96.
157 Carlos Padrós Reig, ‘La exigua tasa de admisión del recurso de amparo constitucional’, Revista de Administración Pública 209 (2019): 307.
158 Council of Europe, Annual Report 2020 of the European Court of Human Rights (2021), https://echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2020_ENG.pdf (accessed June 28, 2022).
159 Blaga Thavard, ‘The Admissibility Hurdle: An Evolving Façade for Politically Motivated Application Rejections by the ECtHR’, VerfBlog, May 27, 2021, https://verfassungsblog.de/theadmissibility-hurdle/(accessed June 28, 2022).
160 Id.
161 Koldo Casla, ‘Supreme Court of Spain: UN Treaty Body individual decisions are legally binding’, EJIL:Talk, August 1, 2018, https://www.ejiltalk.org/supreme-court-of-spain-un-treaty-body-individual-decisions-are-legally-binding/ (accessed June 28, 2022).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Ignacio de la Rasilla
Ignacio de la Rasilla holds the Han Depei Chair in International Law and he is a ‘One Thousand Talents Plan’ Professor, Wuhan University Institute of International Law and Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance, China. This article was revised while in residence at The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg (May-June 2023). Prof. De la Rasilla specialises in the history and theory of international law and in international dispute settlement across different specialised international legal regimes.