The trials of judge Garzón and the enforceability of decisions by human rights treaty bodies in Spain

Abstract

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.