Audiencia Nacional Research Articles

Refusing bilingualism, appropriating languages

This paper analyses a trial held in 2020 in the court known as ‘Audiencia Nacional’ (Madrid), against 12 Galician pro-independence activists accused of ‘glorification of terrorism’. Through the linguistic strategies of the different actors, and the bilingual interaction produced in that space, we can identify the ideologisation processes and political opposition movements existing in the (cross)examination. While previous research has especially focused on community bilingualism and bilingual interaction in institutional contexts such as the courtroom from a perspective of feedback effect, I explore the refusal to switch languages by bilingual speakers (the accused) against the monolingual counterpart (the court). This struggle over language appropriateness is discursively constructed along in-the-moment uses of linguistic difference and cultural history. Finally, since this trial was live-streamed for the media and society, I consider the interdiscursive hybridity triggered by this ‘third party’ in which juridical and political messages are being exchanged.

Pragmatic linguistic analysis of the videos by terrorists of the Barcelona and Cambrils attacks

Three homemade audiovisual recordings filmed a few days before the 2017 terrorist attacks to Barcelona and Cambrils by some individuals involved in these events were weighed as evidence during the trial held at the Audiencia Nacional between November, 10 2020, and May, 27 2021. No expert in linguistics analyzed this evidence in the proceedings. In Spain, the literature on jihadist terrorism has focused on the process of radicalization (Vicente, 2018), including the use of digital media for this purpose (Torralba, 2019) and the importance of counter-narratives to battle it. However, few studies have analyzed terrorist productions from a linguistic perspective. This study examines the recordings screened in the trial for the 2017 attacks through the lens of the comprehensive model for pragmatic and discourse analysis put forward by Fuentes Rodríguez (2000, 2009). Results show how various linguistic devices perform multiple functions at the super-, macro- and microstructural levels, allowing the participants to address various audiences and fulfill three communicative goals. Participants claim membership of a jihadist community and convey a message aimed, on the one hand, to intimidate the viewers they discursively construct as their opponents and, on the other, to obtain recognition from those that share their ideological stance. The discursive singularities of these recordings and their commonalities with productions linked to other forms of terrorism are discussed against the literature.

La STS 246/2017 de 23 de marzo, o cómo el tribunal supremo anula de un plumazo la jurisprudencia de la Audiencia Nacional sobre el control de la jornada laboral y las horas extraordinarias

El artículo analiza la novedad que ha supuesto el reciente fallo de la STS 246/2017, de 23 de marzo, que anula la acción fiscalizadora de la Dirección General de Inspección de Trabajo que se llevaba a cabo a partir de dos sentencias de la Sala de lo Social de la Audiencia Nacional. La decisión del Supremo invalida la obligación de las empresas de llevanza de registros obligatorios en aras a la cuantificación de horas mensuales realizadas por sus trabajadores –y no sólo de las horas extraordinarias-. Se estudian los métodos de control usados habitualmente por los empresarios; se trata el sempiterno conflicto entre el poder de dirección del empleador y la posible colisión con los derechos fundamentales de los trabajadores; se examina la doctrina jurisprudencial más reciente al respecto; la particular cuestión del control presencial de los trabajadores y cómo se lleva a cabo en la actualidad con los más avanzados sistemas biométricos. Para finalizar, se entra en el examen jurídico de las dos sentencias de la Audiencia Nacional (207/2015 y 25/2016) y la sentencia 246/2017 del T.S. En último término, se ponen de manifiesto las conclusiones a las que hemos llegado, vertiendo nuestras humildes opiniones tras el estudio de los aspectos anteriormente referenciados.

A politics of listening in Isabel Coixet’s Escuchando al juez Garzón (2011)

Abstract The coincidence of Baltasar Garzón’s recent trial, which evaluated the legality of certain investigations he conducted as Audiencia Nacional judge, and the bicentennial of La Pepa, Spain’s first though brief experiment in democratic constitutionalism, invite reflection on the state of democracy in Spain. This article on Catalonian director Isabel Coixet’s documentary primarily explores the practice of listening in the filmed interview of Garzón, Escuchando al juez Garzón (Coixet, 2011), and the relationship between listening and democracy that comes to light within the context of the commemoration of La Pepa concurrent to the trials that suspended Garzón from the bench for eleven years. This piece begins by drawing from the work of documentary scholar Bill Nichols and political scientist Susan Bickford, respectively, for its analysis of the voice of the documentary and the practice and promotion of democratic listening.

El derecho al olvido en internet. El fenómeno de los motores de búsqueda

This article is intended to analyze the issue of the “right to be forgotten” on the internet. This concept will be analyzed, from its origins, as petitions to protect rights, filed with data protection agencies from European countries, until its present application, configured as a quasi-basic right framed within the sphere of the basic right to data protection. Also, this article analyzes the work performed by Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, that was the first European agency to decide on penalizing the search engines for the misuse of data during their operation. These cases were heard by the Audiencia Nacional that performed a brilliant prejudicial process (from a technical point of view) about the operation of search engines with respect to the setting of the right to be forgotten.

In the aftermath ofGoogle Spain: how the ‘right to be forgotten’ is being shaped in Spain by courts and the Data Protection Authority

This article examines how the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ is being applied in Spain after the CJEU landmark ruling in the Google Spain case. As of July 2015, a rich body of case law is already available, with more than 200 decisions issued by the Data Protection Authority in cases lodged after Google Spain, and over 70 court rulings handed down by the Audiencia Nacional and other courts. That case law illustrates how the scope and limits of this right are being defined in practice; how the different groups of cases are being dealt with; and how courts and the Data Protection Authority — sometimes with conflicting approaches — are facing the problem of finding an appropriate balance in the difficult cases.

Google Spain v. González: Did the Court Forget about Freedom of Expression?

When reviewing a job application letter, going on a first date, or considering doing business with someone, the first thing many people do is entering the person's name in a search engine. A search engine can point searchers to information that would otherwise have remained obscure. If somebody searched for the name of Spanish lawyer Mario Costeja González, Google showed search results that included a link to a 1998 newspaper announcement implying he had financial troubles at the time. González wanted Google to stop showing those links and started a procedure in Spain. After some legal wrangling, the Spanish Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for advice on the application of the Data Protection Directive, which led to the controversial judgment in Google Spain. In its judgment, the CJEU holds that people, under certain conditions, have the right to have search results for their name delisted. This right can also extend to lawfully published information.

Acerca del papel del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y de la tentación de desacreditar al mensajero [a propósito de la STEDH (gran sala) en el asunto Del Río Prada c. España] = The impact of the ECHR decisions : Del Río Prada v. Spain judgment

Mediante su sentencia en el asunto del Río Prada c. España, la Gran Sala del TEDH ha consolidado su enfoque flexible respecto a la distinción entre las penas y las medidas de ejecución; también ha establecido con claridad que la libertad del Estado en materia de política criminal debe compaginarse con la prohibición absoluta de la aplicación retroactiva del derecho penal desfavorable. Por su parte, la Audiencia Nacional ha recurrido a un procedimiento expeditivo de ejecución de la Sentencia cuya base legal no está clara. Debido a la trascendencia del caso, algunos sectores han caído en la tentación de criticar tanto la Sentencia como al propio Tribunal, actitud común también en otros países y que se explica pero no se justifica por el impacto que las decisiones del TEDH tienen en ocasiones sobre los ámbitos particularmente sensibles del ordenamiento estatal; sin embargo, ante una sentencia condenatoria la solución no está en desacreditar al mensajero sino en reforzar el diálogo entre tribunales.By means of del Río Prada v. Spain judgment, the ECHR Grand Chamber has consolidated its flexible approach regarding the distinction between penalties and measures relating to their execution; the Court has also established clearly that while the States are free to determine their own criminal policy, they must comply with the unconditionally prohibition of retrospective application of the criminal law. In its turn, the Audiencia Nacional has resorted to an expeditious execution procedure of the judgment whose legal foundations are far from clear. Due to the significance of the case, some sectors have given way to the temptation to criticize both the judgment and the Court itself, common attitude also to other countries and that can be explained but not justified on account of the impact that the ECHR decisions may have on especially sensitive areas of national law; however, in the face of a condemnation judgment, the solution is not in discrediting the messenger but in strengthening the dialogue amongst Courts.

The Rights of the Victims of Past Atrocities in Spain: Reparation Without Truth and Justice?

This paper analyzes the issue of enforced disappearances occurred in Spain during the civil war in the light of the international standards of reparation for serious human rights violations. The authors focus on the legal controversy relating to the international regulation of enforced disappearance as a continuing crime, the state’s obligations to investigate, criminally prosecute and punish such crimes or extradite the possible culprits and its peculiar application by the Spanish Supreme Court and the Audiencia Nacional. In the opinion of the authors, that domestic interpretation implies for the victims the denial of adequate reparation under the applicable international legal regimes and a breach of Spain’s international obligations. The paper subsequently examines the role played by the European Court of Human Rights in guaranteeing the victim’s rights to a legal remedy through access to a court in its controversial and the restrictive interpretation of the limits ratione temporis of its own jurisdiction with regard to human rights violations of a continuing nature. Finally, the authors give some suggestions for implementing a truth commission in relation to past human rights abuses in Spain.

Famous Spanish Human Rights Judge, Baltasar Garzón, Convicted for Gross Judicial Misconduct (“Trespass Prevarication”)

Judge Baltasar Garzón Real has been the Investigating Judge of the Central Criminal Court of Instruction number 5 of the Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional) for over 21 years. The Audiencia Nacional is the only trial Court in Spain, with the exception of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, that has jurisdiction in all the regions of Spain and the only one with powers to deal with terrorism, major drug cases and international extraditions.

Religious Freedom and Terrorism in Spanish Case Law

On March 11, 2004, in Madrid, a series of bombs exploded in four trains located in the stations of Atocha, El Pozo, Santa Eugenia, and Calle de Téllez, resulting in tragic casualties (191 dead and over 2,000 injured). Days later a group of Islamist terrorists committed mass suicide in Leganés, Madrid. The attacks set in motion a judicial process that culminated with sentences issued by Spain's Audiencia Nacional (National Court) and Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court).1 The National Court, in accordance with Section 23 of the Organic Law on Judicial Power (6/1985 of July 1, 1985) is the Spanish tribunal authorized to investigate and subsequently judge acts of terrorism. Prior to these attacks, Spanish courts had judged other cases directly related to Islamist terrorism, such as the case of the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria. Moreover, subsequent to the attacks of March 11, 2004, other crimes directly related to Islamist terrorism had gone to trial (e.g., the creation of Islamic cells for the preparation of attacks).

A black cloud overshadows collective bargaining in Spain

REPORT□ COLLECTIVEBARGAINING INSPAIN A black cloud overshadows collective bargaining in Spain I adopted five 8/2010 The the for workers percent controversial public reduction 2010, Government Law-Decree Budget included amending the sector which in wage Royal Law the for a adopted the Royal Law-Decree 8/2010 amending the BudgetLaw for2010, which includeda controversial fivepercentwage reductionfor workersinthe publicsector CAMILO RUBIANO, Industrial and Employment Relations, Department (DIALOGUE), ILO. The views expressed herein arethose ofthe author and donot necessarily reflect the views ofthe International Labour Organisation. The gaining law-decree modification and may therefore affect ofa the collective the right right to to agreement collective freedom barby of law-decree may affect theright tocollective bargaining andtherefore theright tofreedom of association. Thiswas thedecisionreachedbythe Social Chamber ofthe Audiencia Nacional atthetime itrequested theConstitutional Court toexamine the issueina caselodged bytrade unions intheNational Mint Factory, oneofthevarious groups ofworkers thatchallengedthefivepercent wage reduction approved bytheGovernment on 20May2010. However, on7June 2011, ina decision that could haveaneffect onoverthree million workers inthe publicsector,1 theConstitutional Court rejected this reasoning andupheldthemeasure adoptedbythe Government. Background A briefchronology oftheeventsrefers that,in December2009,theSpanishCongress passedthe BudgetLaw for2010. Highlyinfluenced bythe globaleconomiccrisisthateruptedin 2008and that particularly hitSpainandother EU countries, itsmainobjective was thesustainability and stability ofpublic finances. Inthis context, theBudget Lawfor2010provided fora wage increase of0.3 percent forworkers in thepublicsector, in line with thepreviously negotiated Government-Trade UnionAgreement forthepublicsectorfor20102012 ,signedon 25 September 2009. Accordingly, collective agreements concluded in thevarious publicadministrations andstate enterprisesfortheyear2010werelinedup totheprovisions oftheBudget Law,andwith regard towages inparticular provided fora maximum increase of nomorethan 0.3percent. Buttheeffects ofthecrisis intensified and themeasuresadoptedin the BudgetLawweredeemedtobe insufficient. The downgrade oftheGreekdebtand thepossibility ofcontagion to otherEU economiesforcedthe Government toembark on theimplementation of newmeasures, seeking a further reduction inexpenditures . Thus, theGovernment availed from itsright toadopt temporary legislative measures under Article 86oftheConstitution andadoptedtheRoyalLawDecree8 /2010 amending theBudget Lawfor 2010, whichincluded - amongother measures - a controversial five percent wagereduction for workers inthepublicsector witheffect from 1June2010.2 As a consequence,a numberoftradeunions commencedlegal proceedings allegingthatthe unilateral andsubstantial modifications oftheagreement previously negotiated withtheGovernment violated theright tocollective bargaining andthereforetheright tofreedom ofassociation. The decision ofthe Social Chamber oftheAudiencia Nacional The proceeding before theSocialChamber ofthe Audiencia Nacional specifically concerned thecomplaints lodged bydifferent trade unions ofthe National Mint Factory. Basically, they allsought tooverturn thefive percent wagereduction, so that theworkerswouldreceive their wagesinfull, as previously agreeduponintheBudget Lawfor 2010.Theallegations werebasedonthefact that - for thepresent case - the legal prerequisites thatenable the Government toadopta law-decree werenotmet. Infact, theConstitution inessencestates that the Government mayhave recourseto law-decrees onlyincases of"extraordinary andurgent necessity ," andas longas they do notaffect theorganisationofthebasic institutions and the"rights, duties andfreedoms ofcitizens", including theright tofreedom ofassociation andtheright tocollectivebargaining . Theserestrictions arejustified due to thespecialnatureoflaw-decrees, whichare adoptedbytheGovernment andendorsed bythe Congress ina summary proceeding, wherethere isvirtually no debateandamendments cannot be introduced; theyare adopted(or rejected)in a packageas a whole. Moreover, Spanish legislation provides that only theConstitutional Court candeclaretheunconstitutionality ofa regulation having theforce oflaw. Thus, whena court considers that a regulation that hasimplications intheresult ofa proceeding may be contrary totheConstitution, itmust submit the issuetotheConstitutional Court. Indoingso,the SocialChamber oftheAudiencia Nacionalinitiallyconsidered thatthefirst requirement - "extraordinary andurgent necessity" - wasfulfilled, since theserious economic crisis enabled theGovernment inthis casetoimplement measures bylaw-decree. TheAudiencia Nacionalalso considered whether theLaw-Decree affected theright tocollective bargainingwhenitmodified an existing collective agreement, and as a result violatedtheconstitutional prohibition referred toabove.Thekeyissue was thescope oftheterm "affect". TheAudiencia Nacionalfirst recalled that notallregulations havingtheforce oflawaffect a fundamental right, but onlythoseconsisting ofa comprehensive regulationorhaving aninfluence ontheessential aspects ofa fundamental right. In thecase oftheright to collective bargaining therearefiveessential elements , namely: thenegotiation; thechoiceofbargaining level;theselection ofthebargaining content ; thebinding force; andtheadministration of the agreement.In thiscontext,the Audiencia Nacionalarguedthat whentheLaw-Decree modified theBudgetLawitalso prevented thecollectiveagreement attheNational Mint Factory from having a binding force, since"the binding force of INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 14Volume 18Issue 3201 1 REPORT□ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING INSPAIN thecollective agreement dependson theintangibility ofitscontent during itslifetime, andonlyby ensuring thisintangibility itis possibletoguaranteethefunctionality ofa collective agreement as a regulator oflabourrelations, corresponding to thelegislature toensurethat guarantee Inother words, themodification ofa collective agreement bylaw-decreeaffects a fundamental right, sinceitdrains collective bargaining ofitscontent , as itwas allegedbythetradeunions,thus contravening the limitations set forthin the Constitution for this typeofregulation. Therefore, a question ofunconstitutionality hadtobe placed before theConstitutional Court. Inaddition, theAudiencia Nacional heldthat had thecollective agreement been modified (or even suspended orsuppressed) bya law intheformal sense,thecircumstances wouldhavebeendifferent ,sincebytheprinciple ofhierarchy ofnorms thewagesofworkers inthepublicsector...

The Obligations Due to Former 'Protected Persons' in Conflicts that have Ceased to be International: The People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran

On 28 July 2009, around 1000 Iraqi security personnel entered Camp Ashraf, the demilitarized camp of the People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) in Iraq. Several PMOI members were killed and several hundred wounded. US forces had been surrounding the camp providing protection for seven years from the time they took control of the camp in 2003 until January 2009. During this period the United States repeatedly asserted that the camp's inhabitants were ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Conventions, even though, in the view of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the conflict ceased to be international in nature on 28 June 2004. Amnesty International also issued public statements in 2008 and 2009, stating that the PMOI remained ‘protected persons’ under international humanitarian law. On 26 November 2009 the Audiencia Nacional of Spain also ruled that Ashraf residents are ‘protected persons’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This article explores the potential legal bases of these assertions. If there are sound bases for asserting the ‘protected person’ status of the PMOI after 28 June 2004, these may have implications beyond the political particularities of the United States’ relationship with Iran, to the benefit of other former ‘protected persons’ in the ongoing armed conflicts that have ceased to be formally international, in particular for refugees and for detainees.

The Spanish Constitutional Tribunal's Decision in Guatemalan Generals: Unconditional Universality is Back

On 26 September 2005, the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal reversed the decisions of the Audiencia Nacional and the High Court (Tribunal Supremo) in the case of the Guatemalan Generals. According to the two judicial bodies, the exercise of universal jurisdiction over international crimes required a link between the crime or the victims or the offender and Spain, such as the presence of the offender on Spanish territory or the Spanish nationality of the victims. The Constitutional Tribunal held, instead, that these requirements are contrary to the principle pro actione, i.e. they result in an unjustified restriction of the constitutional right to effective judicial protection. The Tribunal also clarified that universal jurisdiction, whose aim is fighting impunity, does not require any link other than the universal character of the values protected by the provisions criminalizing the most serious violations of international law. The presence of the accused in Spain is merely a condition for trial, not a distinct ground of jurisdiction; in other words, the accused must be in Spain for the trial to begin, but jurisdiction may be exercised even in his absence, for example for the issuance of a request for extradition. The only condition to which the exercise of universal jurisdiction is subject is that the state of the locus commissi delicti is not already investigating and prosecuting the case effectively.

Universal Jurisdiction of Spanish Courts over Genocide in Tibet: Can it Work?

The Audiencia Nacional has authorized investigations into acts of genocide committed in Tibet, based on complaints against the former President and the former Prime Minister of China. The decision is based on and implements the latest interpretation of the notion of universal jurisdiction by the Spanish Constitutional Court, which does not require any direct link between the crimes, or their alleged authors or victims with Spain. Given the ban in Spain on trials in absentia, the institution of criminal proceedings in this case will not lead to any conviction. Moreover, with this decision, the political viability of universal jurisdiction is, once again, put to the test. Nevertheless, criminal prosecution of alleged genocide in Tibet might reinforce the emerging state practice accepting the exercise of universal jurisdiction over the most heinous crimes.

An Instance of Reasonable Universality

The Audiencia Nacional`s (AN) decision in Scilingo is not well argued in all its implications and, on some points, the Court engages in legal acrobatics; the decision therefore lends itself to criticism. Nevertheless, the AN was right in exercising its jurisdiction over Scilingo`s extraterritorial crimes, both from the viewpoint of international law (on the basis of so-called conditional universality) and of domestic law (on the strength of Spanish rules of procedural and substantive criminal law). Furthermore, although crimes against humanity were provided for in the Spanish criminal code only in 2003, Scilingo`s trial and conviction for crimes against humanity is not at odds with the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege). Indeed, at the time of commission of his alleged crimes, rules of customary international law prohibiting such crimes already existed in international law and the corresponding domestic provisions were in force in the Spanish legal order. These rules and provisions became directly applicable as soon as Spanish law provided for a penalty attaching to such crimes.

The Flaws of the Scilingo Judgment

According to the author, the Audiencia Nacional violated the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege, in that it applied to the offences attributed to the accused Spanish rules on crimes against humanity which were not in force at the time of the events in question. She holds the view that while the court was correct to classify the acts in question as crimes against humanity, it was wrong to affirm the broad notion of genocide which had been relied upon by the investigating judge in order to initiate proceedings, because, at that stage, the Spanish provision on crimes against humanity was not yet in force. The author also argues that while it may be permissible for international criminal courts to apply a loose notion of the nullum crimen principle, this is not permissible for the domestic courts of a state, such as Spain, where the Constitution lays down a strict notion of the principle of legality and requires that criminal provisions exist before the facts occur, and that they must be written, specific and detailed.

Issues of Universal Jurisdiction in the Scilingo Case

The Scilingo judgment is noteworthy both because it applies the notion of crimes against humanity and because it relies upon the principle of universal jurisdiction. It is, however, argued that the reasoning used by the Audiencia Nacional to conclude that it had jurisdiction under Spanish law over the atrocities committed in Argentina by the accused against other Argentineans is unconvincing. Indeed, the atrocities committed in this case do not qualify as either genocide or terrorism — the only two classes of offences over which Spanish courts have extraterritorial jurisdiction under the relevant Spanish legislation. Furthermore, this paper faults the Court's assertion that state practice demonstrates the existence of an international customary rule granting national courts jurisdiction over crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, the Court correctly claims that universal jurisdiction must be seen as default jurisdiction, intended to grant extraterritorial jurisdiction whenever the territorial or national state are passive. That said, while the Court is correct to both try and convict the accused, its reasoning is faulty; in the case at issue, the Court's jurisdiction is based not on passive nationality, but on the grounds that the accused had voluntarily surrendered to the Court.

Introduction to a Life

INTRODUCTION TO A LIFE ADAN GRIEGO Stanford University Baltasar Garzón has been ajudge in Spain since 1980 when he was only 24. In his 12 years on the bench he has prosecuted cases ranging from organized crime to terrorism and government corruption as well as "crimes committed outside Spain but where the Spanish are competent to try them- such as genocide and torture, as in the cases of Argentina and Chile...'" Of middle class farming origins, Garzón spent several years in the seminary studying for the priesthood in his native Andalucía. After leaving his religious studies, he attended law school at the University of Seville where he completed his degree in 1978 just as Spain began its transition to democracy. His judicial career was interrupted briefly during 1993-1994 when he served in the Spanish Cortes (the legislature's lower house), having won a seat for the Socialist Party (PSOE). Disillusioned by the lax policies of Felipe Gonzalez (Spain's Socialist Premier from 1982-1996), Garzón quit his congressional post and returned to his judicial origins. He then brought corruption charges against several of Gonzalez's associates, in many ways precipitating the Socialist's fall from power. Perhaps it was expected that with the Conservative Party (Alianza Popular) coming to power in 1996, Garzón might fade into the distance. But he had already turned his attention to another front, this time against Argentina's military leaders ofthe 1970's guerrasucia, or dirty war, which saw between 13,000-15,000 citizens killed. RidiculedbyArgentine authorities, Garzón continuedhis investigations into human rights violations of Spanish citizens at the hands of Argentina's military junta. He was not deterred by either ridicule or disbelief from the press. After all, it was not the first time he had encountered this type of attitude. Back in 1990 he had led Operation Necora, "a sting that involved 54 men and women suspected of working for the country's biggest drug lords. With the help of a dealer who turned state's evidence, Garzón expected long prison sentences for members of the network."2 The courts, feeling there was a lack of evidence, handed out short prison terms or, in some cases, acquittals.© 2004-2005 NUEVO TEXTO CRITICO Vol. XVII-XVIII No. 33-36 22__________________________________________________________BALTAZAR GARZÓN In late 1998 the international community was startled to find out that Judge Garzón had issued an order of detention against Augusto Pinochet while the former Chilean dictator (1973-1990) was in London undergoing medical treatment. The famous "Caso Pinochet" continued in the Chilean courts after British authorities allowed Pinochet to return to Chile until the dictator's death in December of 2006. Certainly Garzón's bold steps in trying gross human rights violations has established precedent against heads ofstate who may now be tried for crimes like torture and genocide, which are no longer considered to be covered by sovereign immunity. Notes 1.Cuomo, Kerry Kennedy. Speak Truth to Power: Human Rights Defenders Who Are Changing Our World. New York: Crown Publishers, 2000, p. 128 2.Oilman, Craig. "A Crusader with a Fondness for the Limelight." Time International, November 2, 1998. p. 16. Works consulted Los Documentos del Juez Garzón y la Audiencia Nacional: El Caso de España contra las dictaduras chilena y argentina (prólogo de Maruja Torres y epílogo de Luis Sepulveda). Barcelona: Planeta, 1998. Garzón, Baltasar: Un mundo sin miedo. Barcelona: Plaza y Janes, 2005. Sanchez Soler, Mariano: Baltasar Garzón: tigre depapel. Madrid: Foca, 2006. Urbano, Pilar: Garzón: el hombre que veía amanecer. Barcelona: Plaza y Janes, 2000. ...