Garzón Convicted

10 February 2012


I write my last blog post of the (school) week without mentioning the topic of conversation at school: Garzón's trial. 


But before I talk about such a serious topic, I want to share two of the phrases I learned during my language exchange today. These are children's phrases sort of like: "Quack, Quack. Seat Back." "Finders, keepers. Losers, weepers." "Criss Cross Applesauce."  


I learned the following phrases in Spanish:


Quien se fue a Sevilla perdió su silla. He who goes to Sevilla (a city in Spain) loses his chair. 


Santa Rita Rita Rita lo que se da no se quita. Saint Rita Rita Rita what you give you can't take away. 


Now, on to a more serious topic.


This week, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled in favor of suspension of one of Spain's most famous judges. 


Allegedly, while investigating a case of financial corruption, Garzón ordered wiretaps on several suspects who were in jail so that he could hear what was being said between the suspects and their attorneys. As you can imagine, the attorneys argued that this violated client-attorney privacy privilege. 


Garzón has been convicted for this charge and will be suspended for 11 years. 


However, there are other cases being brought against him. 


One of which is a human rights case--involving investigations into human rights abuses under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. 


According to the Amnesty Law of 1977, crimes committed by both sides were forgiven. However, in 2008, Garzón decided to investigate anyway. 


Garzón said in his defense:


"Mi conciencia está tranquila porque tomé las decisiones que creía ajustadas a derecho, investigar, perseguir y sancionar los crímenes masivos de desapariciones forzadas y detenciones ilegales (..) como única defensa que las instituciones creo que deben a las víctimas para que no se produzca el olvido y la falta de memoria."


My conscience is calm because I made decisions that I believed were right in investigating, persecuting, and sanctioning the crimes of the forced disappearances and illegal arrests (...) the only defense that the institutions owe the victims so that they aren't forgotten.  


However, attorneys argue that Garzón has not treated all victims of franquismo equally. In 1998, Garzón refused to hear a case about the murders in Paracuellos. However, when a similar case (investigating pro-Franco crimes) was brought to him, he heard it. 


One lawyer, Ruiz Infante said: 


"¿Se quiere sostener que los hechos ocurridos en Paracuellos no son desapariciones forzosas y sí los del bando contrario? ¿Que los enterrados en unas fosas pueden acogerse al derecho internacional y los de las otras no?" 


You want to argue that what happened in Paracuellos isn't forced disappearances but what happened to the other side is? That the buried in some graves can have recourse with international law and others can't?


The verdict on this second charge will probably be debated for a couple weeks.