Garzón Conviction--An American Perspective

I won't profess to be an expert on the Garzón case that I wrote about in my blog yesterday. However, I have spent some time delving into various sources for information on the case--American, British, and of course, Spanish.

What has struck me as interesting is the way in which the story is being presented by foreign media. I feel that the story is becoming oversimplified and painting Garzón as an innocent victim. This may or may not be true, but most of the foreign media articles are missing a piece of the puzzle.


Yesterday, in the New York Times, there was a scathing article demanding that Spain acquit Garzón. The writer says: 


"Judge Garzón is undeniably flamboyant and at times overreaches, but prosecuting him for digging into Franco-era crimes is an offense against justice and history. The Spanish Supreme Court never should have accepted this case. Now it must acquit him."


You can read the whole article here.  

Before explaining the issue that I don't feel is being addressed here, I'd like to give some context for those of you not as familiar with the Spanish Civil War and Franco's dictatorship. 

In the last 150 years, Spain has seen it's fair share of turmoil. Since the late 19th century through the 20th century, Spain has seen various forms of government--two republics, the monarchy, two dictators, and one democracy.

In 1977, as Spain transitioned from a dictatorship to a democracy, action was taken in order to help foster the fledgling democracy. This action came in the form of amnesty for all crimes committed during this period. In order to move forward, no one could start pointing fingers and judging others because both sides committed their fair share of atrocities. In Spain, this is often referred to as the pacto de olvido--the pact of forgetting.

You can argue whether or not forgetting was the best course of action--especially now as Spaniards are working through the consequences of this era. I, personally, find it difficult to judge either way.

I wrote my undergraduate thesis on the subject of the portrayal of trauma in Latin American theater. Part of my research suggested that unless you deal with trauma, you open yourself up to the repetition of said trauma. For example, something might remind you of the initial trauma, and you once again realize the trauma you've been through. It becomes a cycle.

At the same time, I can't argue that there is any neat way to begin a democracy after so much blood was shed by both sides. The new government couldn't openly favor one side over the other--which would have been a sure way to kill the new democracy.

That is part of the issue at the center of the Garzón trial.

The New York Times article argues that Garzón cannot be convicted because human rights abuses are not subject to amnesty laws and can be tried at any time.

However, the other issue in the Garzón trial is the type of cases he chose to hear. The 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. 

This is the issue that many of the American papers I have read lack, and I think it's important to see that this case isn't black and white. There is more to the issue than that.