![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
The comparative study of relevant Argentine and Spanish legislation and jurisprudence offers a perfect picture of the debate surrounding the role and limits of Criminal Law in transitional contexts. An analysis of these two experiences, and of the different choices they have taken, allows to point out three controversial aspects: firstly, the clash between legislative choices (often implying amnesties or similar measures) and judicial decisions that may somehow attempt to ‘correct’ the former. Secondly, the concerns raised by this creative judicial activity, in terms of its compatibility with the principles of legality and non-retroactivity and the prohibition of arbitrariness. Thirdly, the extent of the duty to prosecute and punish gross human rights violations vis-à-vis the limits of Criminal Justice. The article suggests reminding that, in extraordinary (transitional) contexts, Criminal Justice can and should be combined with other complementary mechanisms aimed at granting truth, justice, reparation and the building of a shared memory.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Alicia Gil Gil, ‘Spain as an Example of Total Oblivion with Partial Rehabilitation’, in The Role of Courts in Transitional Justice, ed. Jessica Almqvist and Carlos Esposito (London: Routledge, 2011), 103.
2 Pablo Parenti, ‘The Prosecution of International Crimes in Argentina’, International Criminal Law Review (ICLR) 10 (2010): 491.
3 Before leaving the power, the military junta had passed a self-amnesty law (Law for National Pacification, of 22 September 1983, No. 222.924), but this was declared void by the Law 23.040 of 22 December 1983.
4 Law 23.492 of 12 December 1986, and Law 23.521 of 4 June 1987, respectively.
5 Art. 5, Law 23.492, and Art. 2, Law 23.521 expressly excluded from their scope the offences of kidnapping minors and falsifying birth records and/or adoption papers, which would continue ‘according to their status’.
6 See, among others, the notorious Scilingo case in Spain (Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Penal, judgment 798/2007, 1 October 2007) and the Astiz case in Italy (Cassazione Penale, I Sezione, Alfredo Ignacio Astiz, judgment, 18 March 2009). Ezequiel Malarino, ‘Argentina’, in Persecución penal nacional de crímenes internacionales en América Latina y España, ed. Kai Ambos and Ezequiel Malarino (Montevideo: KAS, 2003), 35.
7 Sévane Garibian, ‘Ghosts Also Die Resisting Disappearance Through the “Right to the Truth” and the Juicios por la Verdad in Argentina’, Journal of International Criminal Justice (JICJ) 12 (2014): 515; Elena Maculan and Daniel Pastor, El derecho a la verdad y su realización por medio del proceso penal (Buenos Aires: Hammurabi, 2013).
8 Elena Maculan, ‘Prosecuting International Crimes at National Level: Lessons from the Argentine “Truth-Finding Trials”’, Utrecht Law Review 8, no. 1 (2012): 106.
9 Juzgado Nacional en lo Criminal y Correccional Federal 4 (Juez Cavallo), Simón, Julio, Del Cerro, Juan Antonio (8686/2000), 6 March 2001.
10 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la nación (hereafter, CSJN), Simón, Julio Héctor y otros s/privación ilegítima de la libertad (17.768), Judgment, 14 June 2005.
11 Christine Bakker, ‘A Full Stop to Amnesty in Argentina: The Simón Case’, JICJ 3 (2005): 1106, and, more critical, Ezequiel Malarino, ‘La cara represiva de la reciente jurisprudencia argentina sobre graves violaciones de los derechos humanos’, IuraGentium (2009).
12 Juan-Pablo León-Pérez-Acevedo, ‘The Control of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights over Amnesty Laws and Other Exemption Measures: Legitimacy Assessment’, Leiden Journal of International Law 33 (2020): 667; Louise Mallinder, ‘The End of Amnesty or Regional Overreach? Interpreting the Erosion of South America’s Amnesty Law’, International and Comparatively Law Quarterly 65 (2016): 645; Christina Binder, ‘The Prohibition of Amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, German Law Journal 12 (2011): 1203.
13 IACtHR, Gelman v. Uruguay, Judgment, 24 February 2011.
14 IACtHR, Barrios Altos and La Cantuta v. Peru, Monitoring compliance proceedings, Resolution, 30 May 2018, calling for the revision of the pardon issued to the former president Fujimori.
15 Paolo Caroli, ‘Transitional Amnesties: Can They Be Prohibited?’, Diritto penale contemporaneo 4 (2018): 205.
16 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (UN Doc. A/RES/60/147), 16 December 2005; Updated Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), 8 February 2005.
17 HRC, General Comment 20 (UN Doc. A/44/40), 10 March 1992, para. 15; General Comment 31 (UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13), 29 March 2004, para. 18; Rodríguez v. Uruguay, Communication 322/1988, Views, 19 July 1994, para. 12.4.
18 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgment, IT-95-17/1-T, T.Ch., 10 December 1998, para. 155. The decision focuses on amnesties granted to cover acts of torture.
19 SCSL, Prosecutor v. Kallon/Kamara, Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction, SCSL-2004-15-PT/SCSL-2004-16-PT, A.Ch., 13 March 2004, paras. 66–74. The Chamber declared the invalidity of the amnesty law provided in the Lomé Peace Agreement, due to the ius cogens nature of the international rules prohibiting and criminalising these crimes: Antonio Cassese, ‘The Special Court and International Law: The Decision Concerning the Lomé Agreement Amnesty’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 2, no. 4 (2004): 1130–40. The Court finds a ‘crystallising international norm that a government cannot grant amnesties’ for international crimes (para. 82).
20 ECCC, Case 002, Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objections, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, T.Ch., 3 November 2011, paras. 37–53. For an overall study of international instruments and rulings dealing with the prohibition of amnesties: Josepha Close, Amnesty, Serious Crimes and International Law (Oxon: Routledge, 2019); Gabriele Della Morte, Le amnistie nel diritto internazionale (Padova: Cedam, 2011).
21 Naomi Roth-Arriaza, ‘After Amnesties are Gone: Latin American National Courts and the New Contours of the Fight Against Impunity’, Human Rights Quarterly 37 (2015): 341.
22 CSJN, Mazzeo, Julio Lilo y otros s/recurso de casación e inconstitucionalidad (causa M.2333.XLII), Judgment, 13 July 2007.
23 Fabián Raimondo, ‘Overcoming Domestic Legal Impediments to the Investigation and Prosecution of Human Rights Violations: The Case of Argentina’, Human Rights Brief 18, no. 2 (2011): 15.
24 The Unity initially created was replaced, in 2013, by the Procuraduría de Crímenes contra la Humanidad (PGN Decision 163/04, 29 July 2013).
25 https://www.fiscales.gob.ar/lesa-humanidad/son-1088-las-personas-condenadas-por-crimenes-de-lesa-humanidad-en-286-sentencias-dictadas-desde-2006/. Data updated until the 9 September 2022.
26 The first conviction was issued against the former General Director of Investigations within the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires: Tribunal Oral Federal en lo Criminal (hereafter, TOFC) in La Plata, Etchecolatz, Miguel Osvaldo (2251/06), Judgment, 19 September 2006.
27 Roth-Arriaza, ‘After Amnesties are Gone’, 342–4.
28 This position was upheld by the Supreme Court: CSJN, Arancibia Clavel, Lautaro s/ homicidio calificado y asociación ilícita y otros (259), Judgment, 24 August 2004.
29 Some first-instance judgments also declare that the facts can be labelled as genocide, but this finding is usually reversed by the higher courts: Elena Maculan, ‘La contribución iberoamericana a la ampliación de los grupos protegidos por el delito de genocidio’, in El legado Del Tribunal Penal Internacional para la ex Yugoslavia sobre la definición y aplicación del delito de genocidio, ed. Hector Olásolo and Eirene de Prada (Valencia: Tirant, 2019), 209.
30 TOCF 1 of San Martín, Riveros, Omar Santiago and others (2046 and its accumulations 2208), Judgment, 5 May 2011, 282–3; TOCF of Neuquen, Reinhold, Oscar Lorenzo (666), Judgment, 1 Februuary 2009, 500 ff., confirmed in second instance (Cámara Federal de Casación Penal, Chamber IV, Reinhold, Oscar Lorenzo et al. on appeal (10.609), Appeals Judgment, 13 February 2012); TOCF of Tucumán, Romero Niklison María Alejandra (401.118/04 and its accumulations 401.118/04), Judgment, 31 March 2011, 110; TOCF 1 of Córdoba, Videla, Jorge Rafael and Others and Menéndez, Luciano Benjamín (172/09 and M-13/09), Judgment, 22 December 2010, 295.
31 The understanding of this principle and its underlying implications differ significantly between domestic legal traditions, as well as in International and International Criminal Law: Kenneth Gallant, The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law (Cambridge: CUP, 2009); Mercedes Pérez Manzano and Juan Antonio Lascurain Sánchez (eds.), La tutela multinivel del principio de legalidad (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2016); Marco Scoletta, ‘El principio de legalidad penal europeo’, in Los derechos fundamentales en el derecho penal europeo, ed. Luis Diez Picazo and Adán Nieto Martín (Madrid: Civitas, 2010), 277; Vico Valentini, Diritto penale intertemporale: logiche continentali ed ermeneutica europea (Milano: Giuffrè, 2012).
32 Dissenting vote of Judge Vasquez attached to the Argentine Supreme Court’s ruling in the Arancibia Clavel case, para. 29 (free translation).
33 The Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, adopted by the International Law Commission on 15 May 2019, apart from their being still at a draft stage, adopt the same definition of the category contained in Article 7 of the Rome Statute.
34 Luis Sánchez Rodríguez and Javier Chinchón Álvarez, ‘Algunas consideraciones jurídico-internacionales acerca de la sentencia de la sala Especial de la Corte Suprema de la República del Perú contra Alberto Kenya Fujimori’, Revista de Estudios Jurídicos 10 (2010).
35 In the same vein, Juan Pablo Montiel, ‘La “mala costumbre” de vulnerar derechos humanos: análisis y pronóstico de la costumbre internacional como fuente de Derecho penal internacional’, in La crisis del principio de legalidad en el nuevo Derecho penal: ¿Decadencia o evolución?, ed. Juan Pablo Montiel (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2012), 399, 414.
36 Ward Ferdinandusse, Direct Application of International Criminal Law in National Courts (The Hague: TMC Asser Press, 2006), 236, despite suggesting that these problems are ‘greatly mitigated by the fundamental character of many of the core crimes’.
37 Malarino, ‘Argentina’, 60.
38 Triestino Mariniello, ‘The “Nuremberg Clause” and Beyond’, Nordic Journal of International Law 82 (2013), 221.
39 In this line, the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice has gradually affirmed a principle of flexible legality, which should be applied exclusively to core international crimes: Colombian Supreme Court, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Banquez Martínez, Úber Enrique (33.039), Judgment, 16 December 2010.
40 Alicia Gil Gil, ‘La excepción al principio de legalidad del n.° 2 del artículo 7 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos’, Anuario de Derecho penal y Ciencias penales 63, no. 1 (2010): 143, 159.
41 Bruce Broomhall, ‘Article 22’, in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. A Commentary, 4th ed., ed. Kai Ambos (München: C.H.Beck-Hart-Nomos, 2022), 1149; Héctor Olásolo, ‘A Note on the Evolution of the Principle of Legality in International Criminal Law’, Criminal Law Forum 18 (2007): 301; Kai Ambos, Treatise of International Criminal Law, Vol. I (Oxford: OUP, 2013), 90.
42 CSJN, Levin, Marcos Jacobo y otros s/ imposición de tortura (CSJ1874/2015/RH1), Judgment, 18 September 2018 and Almirón, Víctor Hugo y otros s/ imposición de tortura, Judgment, 18 October 2022.
43 Cámara Federal de Casación Penal (CFCP), Sala III, Labarta Sánchez, Juan Roberto et al. s/recurso de casación (14.282), 8 February 2013.
44 CFCP, Sala III, Albornoz, Roberto et al. s/ rec. De casación (13.085/13049), 8 November 2012.
45 Elena Maculan, ‘International Crimes or Ordinary Crimes? The “Dual Classification of the Facts” as an Interpretive Method’, International Criminal Law Review 21, no. 3 (2021): 403.
46 Kai Ambos, Treatise on International Criminal Law, Volume II (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 248–89.
47 Leena Grover, Interpreting Crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: CUP, 2014), 188.
48 Timothy Endicott, ‘The Coxford Lecture. Arbitrariness’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence XXVII, no. 1 (2014): 49. Similarly, Anthony K. Thompson, ‘The Rule of Law, Arbitrariness and Institutional Virtue’, Alternative Law Journal 44, no. 2 (2019): 159–63, warns about arbitrariness as the real ‘enemy’ of the rule of law, since it prevents citizens from predicting ‘the public outcomes in their lives without fear’.
49 Elena Maculan, Los crímenes internacionales en la jurisprudencia latinoamericana (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2019), 96.
50 Juzgado de Primera Instancia en lo Penal, 7° turno, Bordaberry Arocena, Juan María, Judgment, 9 February 2010, and (Peruvian) Tribunal Constitucional, Contreras Roberto (00218-2009-PHC/TC, Accomarca case), 11 November 2010.
51 Elena Maculan and Alicia Gil Gil, ‘The Rationale and Purposes of Criminal Law and Punishment in Transitional Contexts’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 40, no. 1 (2020): 132.
52 Alicia Gil Gil, La justicia de transición en España. De la amnistía a la memoria histórica (Barcelona: Atelier, 2008), 49.
53 Ibid., 62; Paloma Aguilar Fernández, Memoria y olvido de la guerra civil española (Madrid: Alianza, 1996); Santos Juliá, Transición (Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg, 2017).
54 Gil Gil, ‘Spain as an example’.
55 Paolo Caroli, Transitional Justice in Italy and the Crimes of Fascism and Nazism (London: Routledge, 2022), 182.
56 Luc Huyse, ‘Justice after Transition: On the Choices Successor Elites Make in Dealing with the Past’, Law and Social Inquiry 51 (1995): 76.
57 Manuel Reyes Mate, Justicia de las víctimas (Barcelona: Anthropos, 2009); Caroli, Transitional Justice, 215.
58 Ramón Sáez Varcácel, ‘Justicia transicional y España. ¿Se puede juzgar la Historia?’, in Memoria histórica: ¿Se puede juzgar la historia? (Madrid: Fundación Antonio Carretero, 2009), 86.
59 John Vervaele, ‘Delitos Internacionales: Del Ius (Non) Puniendi del Estado-Nación a un Deber Puniendi Imperativo de Ius Cogens’, Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal 6 (2013): 104.
60 Josep Tamarit Sumalla, ‘Transition, Historical Memory and Criminal Justice in Spain’, JICJ 9 (2011): 729.
61 Javier Chinchón Álvarez, El tratamiento judicial de los crímenes de la Guerra Civil y el franquismo en España (Donostia: Universidad de Deusto, 2012). From a sociological perspective: Paloma Aguilar Fernández, Luis Balcells and Héctor Cebolla-Boado, ‘Las actitudes de los españoles ante las medidas de justicia transicional relativas a la Guerra Civil y al franquismo’, Revista Internacional de Sociología 69, no. 1 (2011): 59.
62 Josep Tamarit Sumalla, ‘Justicia transicional y Derecho penal en España’, in Memoria histórica: ¿Se puede juzgar la historia?, (Madrid: Fundación Antonio Carretero, 2009), 129, 139.
63 Juzgado Central de Instrucción 5, Audiencia Nacional de Madrid, Diligencias Previas Proc. Abreviado 399/2006 V, Decision, 16 October 2008.
64 Elena Maculan, ‘Límites a la expansión de la persecución por crímenes internacionales y del papel del juez-historiador: La aportación de la STS 101/2012’, Revista de Derecho penal y Criminología 8 (2012): 497.
65 Kai Ambos, ‘The Legal Framework of Transitional Justice: A Systematic Study with a Special Focus on the Role of the ICC’, in Building a Future on Peace and Justice, ed. Kai Ambos et al. (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2009).
66 ECtHR, Gutiérrez Dorado y Dorado Ortiz v. Spain, Decision on inadmissibility, 27 March 2012; Canales Bermejo v. Spain, Decision on inadmissibility, 8 November 2012.
67 Pérez-León-Acevedo, ‘The Control of the Inter-American Court’, 680–1.
68 Kai Ambos and Laura Böhm, ‘Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: Tribunal tímido y tribunal audaz?’ in Sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos y Derecho penal internacional, vol. II, ed. Kai Ambos et al. (Montevideo: KAS, 2011), 55.
69 For instance, in Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary (App.17247/13, Judgment, 26 May 2020), the ECtHR remarked that ‘pardons and amnesties are primarily matters of member States’ domestic law’ (para. 160).
70 Miles Jackson, ‘Amnesties in Strasbourg’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 38, no. 1 (2018); Juan-Pablo Pérez-León-Acevedo, ‘The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) vis-à-vis Amnesties and Pardons: Factors Concerning or Affecting the Degree of ECtHR’s Deference to States’, International Journal of Human Rights 26, no. 6 (2022): 1107. Although, as the Author points out, the degree of this deference to states varies depending on four main factors: ‘(i) the national process of adoption, application, and/or validation of amnesties/pardons; (ii) ECtHR’s consideration of the margin of appreciation or discretion given to states; (iii) state compliance with international obligations on human rights; and (iv) potential impact on transitions to peace, reconciliation, democracy, and/or the rule of law’ (1108).
71 Anja Seibert-Fohr, Prosecuting Serious Human Rights Violations (Oxford: OUP, 2009), 118.
72 Pérez-León-Acevedo, ‘The European Court of Human Rights’, 1110.
73 IACtHR, El-Mozote v. El Salvador, Concurring Opinion Judge García-Sayán, 25 October 2012; La-Rochela-Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment, 11 May 2007. This trend has been pointed out by Louise Mallinder, ‘The End of Amnesty or Regional Overreach? Interpreting the Erosion of South America’s Amnesty Law’, International and Comparatively Law Quarterly 65, no. 3 (2016): 657.
74 ECtHR, Association 21 December 1989 v. Romania (App.33810/07), Judgment, 24 May 2011, para. 144: ‘an amnesty is generally incompatible with the duty incumbent on the States to investigate acts of torture […] and to combat impunity for international crimes. This is also true in respect of pardon’.
75 ECtHR, Margus v. Croatia (App.4455/10), Judgment, 13 November 2012, para. 74.
76 ECtHR, Tarbuk v. Croatia (App.31360/10), Judgment, 11 December 2012, para. 45. Pérez-León-Acevedo, ‘The European Court of Human Rights’, 1118-23.
77 ECtHR, Margus v. Croatia (App.4455/10), GC, Judgment, 27 May 2014, Joint concurring opinion of Judges Šikuta, Wojtyczek, and Vehabović, para. 9.
78 ICC, Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, PTC, ‘Decision on the Admissibility Challenge’ (ICC-01/11-01/11-662), 5 April 2019, para. 61.
79 ICC, Gaddafi, AC, ‘Judgment on the Appeal’ (ICC-01/11-01/11-695), 9 March 2020, para. 96.
80 Close, Amnesty; Caroli, Transitional Amnesties, 210; Christine Bell, ‘The “New Law” of Transitional Justice’, in Building a Future on Peace and Justice, ed. Kai Ambos et al. (Berlin: Springer, 2009), 105, 123 (defending the need for an element of ‘legal mess’ on the point in transitions); Louise Mallinder, ‘Can Amnesties and International Justice be Reconciled?’, International Journal of Transitional Justice 1 (2007): 208. Jackson, ‘Amnesties in Strasbourg’, warns that the latest trend in ECtHR jurisprudence on amnesties implies ‘the exclusion of conflicting interests from the Court’s analysis; the closing down of the margin of appreciation; the limiting of judicial deference to political decision makers’ (17). Christian Tomuschat, ‘The Duty to Prosecute International Crimes Committed by Individuals’, in Tradition und Weltoffenheit des Rechts, Festschrift für Steinberg, ed. Hans-Joachim Cremer (Berlin: Springer, 2002), 315, also suggests: ‘It would seem to be wrong, however, to provide categorical answers to this issue. […] We agree with those authors who are of the view that such amnesties, if they have been responsibly enacted by a people wishing to make a fresh start after having lived through a period of national cataclysm, should also be respected by other States and by the institutions of the international community’ (344 and 347). Similarly, Daniel Pastor, ‘El sistema penal internacional del Estatuto de Roma. Aproximaciones jurídicas críticas’, Estudios sobre justicia penal, ed. David Baigún (Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto, 2005), 699, 711.
81 Maculan and Gil, ‘The Rationale and Purposes’, 157. Ezequiel Malarino, ‘Transición, derecho penal y amnistía’, Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología 9 (2013): 205, suggests the following motto: ‘as much [criminal] justice as peace allows’ (211).
82 (Spanish) Tribunal Constitucional, ‘Auto sobre recurso de amparo 5781-2018, Gerardo Iglesias Argüelles’, 15 September 2021.
83 Para. 4 (free translation). Two judges sign a dissenting opinion, in which they claim for an interpretation closer to the idea of the applicability of international custom as a sufficient incriminating source, and the following inadmissibility of statutory limitations and amnesties.
84 See section 3.1 above.
85 The terminological shift from the concept of ‘historical memory’ to that of ‘democratic memory’ is significant in itself: Artemi Rallo Lombarte, ‘Memoria democrática y Constitución’, Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 51 (2023): 109, 116.
86 JuanManuel López Ulla, ‘Del derecho a la verdad al deber de memoria: a propósito de la nueva Ley de Memoria Democrática’, Revista de Derecho Político 117 (2023): 99, 101. The Author also argues that the LDM focuses on building a collective memory based on the knowledge of truth, much more than the former LHM (113). See the official map of mass graves https://www.mpr.gob.es/memoriademocratica/mapa-de-fosas/Paginas/index.aspx.
87 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; Follow-up report to the recommendations made by the Working Group, Human Rights Council. Missions to Chile and Spain (A/HRC/36/39/Add.3), 7 September 2017; Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-repetition Guarantees, Pablo de Greiff, after his Mission to Spain, 22 July 2014.
88 BBC News Mundo, 24 October 2019, https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-50144938.
89 López Ulla, ‘Del derecho a la verdad’, 123 agrees on this point, but he cautions against the underlying idea that such Commission should somehow impose an ‘official’ narrative about the past.
90 Free translation.
91 López Ulla, ‘Del derecho a la verdad’, 124–5; Marc Carillo, ‘La Memoria y la calidad democrática del Estado’, Revista de las Cortes Generales 114 (2022): 183, although the latter Author admits that, to get that result while complying with the principle of legality, Spain should previously ratify the 1968 Convention (205–6).
92 Fiscal de Sala en materia de Derechos Humanos y Memoria Democrática, ‘Diligencias Indeterminadas n. 438/2022 Juzgado de Instrucción no. 18 de Barcelona’ (M.D.20/2023), 13 September 2023.
93 Ibidem, free translation.
94 See sections 2.2 and 3.1 above.
95 William Schabas, ‘Of Amnesty, Pendulums, and Peremptory Norms’, FIU Law Review 15 (2021): 83, noting that the recent developments regarding amnesties have refuted the SCSL’s forecast according to which the norm prohibiting amnesties was crystallising.
96 Consejo General del Poder Judicial (Pleno), Informe sobre el Anteproyecto de Ley de Memoria democrática, 7 June 2021.
97 Juzgado de Instrucción 18 de Barcelona, DP 1500/2023, Decision, 5 October 2023.
98 Alicia Gil Gil, ‘Humo’, Fonte limpa 54 (2022): 8–10 (free translation).
99 Similarly, Ana I. Pérez Machío and Norberto J. de la Mata Barranco, ‘Vulnerabilidad de las víctimas de motivación política herramientas de lucha contra la impunidad’, in Personas vulnerables y tutela penal, ed. Ana I. Pérez Machío and Norberto J. de la Mata Barranco (Valencia: Tirant, 2023), 267.
100 It is noteworthy that both countries opened investigations about the past atrocities committed in the other country; yet, whereas the criminal investigation opened in Spain about crimes committed in the Argentine dictatorship ended with the conviction of Adolfo Scilingo, the opening of a criminal investigation in 2010, before an Argentine tribunal, about crimes committed in the Francoist regime (‘Querella argentina’), is still ongoing, and has not really met the cooperation of Spanish authorities: Manuel Sánchez-Moreno, ‘Memorias y justicia a través del océano. Argentina y España frente a sus últimas dictaduras’, Memoria y narración 1 (2018): 52.
101 Mark Drumbl, ‘Impunities’, The Oxford Handbook on International Criminal Law (Oxford: OUP, 2020), 230.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Elena Maculan
Elena Maculan, Professor (Profesora Titular de Universidad) of Criminal Law at UNED, Madrid. Previously, she was Post-doc Research Fellow at the same University and Lecturer at University of Trento. She holds a PhD in ‘Comparative and European Legal Studies’ by University of Trento (Italy) and in ‘Peace and International Security’ by UNED of Madrid (Spain), under a co-tutelage regime and with the label of ‘Doctor Europaeus’ and the Extraordinary Prize for PhD fellows of both Universities. She has published extensively in her main research fields, which are International Criminal Law, Transitional Justice, Restorative Justice, Terrorism and Comparative Criminal Law.