Harper’s on Garzón

May 18, 2010
By

Scott Horton writes:

In the end, it is not Garzón but rather the judicial oversight body that emerges with its reputation in a tatters. Moreover, the entire affair serves to put the spotlight just where it belongs. The assumption that the horrors of Spain’s fascist past must remain forever covered up serves the interest of some political figures with a compromised past. But it is radically false and a grave contravention of the most fundamental precepts of justice. The truth must ultimately be known, and Garzón deserves credit for pressing the issue.

More here.

Share

One Response to “ Harper’s on Garzón ”

  1. Greg on May 18, 2010 at 11:25 am

    I think Horton kind of misses the point. The Judicial Oversight Body (Consejo General del Poder Judicial) had no choice but to suspend Garzón; by statute, the suspension is automatic, once the presiding judge in the Tribunal Supremo declares that the trial has begun. That is why the “vote” of the Consejo was unanimous: it is clear that several of the members of that body were unhappy with what was going on, but they really had no choice but to “vote’ for the suspension.

    The news here, I think, is how the presiding Supreme Court Judge, Luciano Varela, has added yet another item to what is now a long list of very questionable acts in his prosecution of Garzón (and he does seem to be more prosectutor than judge). After Garzón declared that he wanted to request a leave of absence to go as an adviser to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, Valera, in little more than 24 hours, rushed to “resolve” several pending appeals, so that he could declare the trial open, and notify the CGPJ before that body had a chance to take up Garzón’s request for the leave of absence. There really is no possible way to interpret this haste but as an attempt to further humiliate Garzón: the leave that Garzón requested was, in effect, a self-suspension, in that it removed him from his jurisdictional duties, which is the only real objective of the “provisional suspension” that was subsequently imposed on him

Leave a Comment