The Economist Comments on Garzon’s Moves

There is not much that hasn’t already been said by someone else in this recent Economist article, but it’s worth a quick read.  One of the highlights is this brief and simple response to some of the questions I raise in an earlier post: “The judge has produced a fresh interpretation of [The 1977 Amnesty] laws. Where a victim’s body has never been found, he asserts, a crime of kidnapping continues to this day. So it is not covered by the amnesty. To those who argue that international laws on crimes against humanity did not exist when the civil war ended in 1939, he points to the precedent of the Nuremberg trials of top Nazis. ”

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470581

And for those of you who want to delve into source materials, I found a copy of the opinion here:

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2008/10/16/auto_memoria_historica.pdf

November 3, 2008 - Posted by | Garzon Watch | , , , ,

2 Comments »

  1. The jurisprudence on the question of the “disappeared” has been clearly established in international law and some national jurisdictions: until the body is found, the violation is considered to be ongoing and thus not covered by an amnesty.

    Comment by Carlos Salinas | November 3, 2008

  2. True. And yet it bears reminding the reader that international law is unenforceable and that there are many examples of countries and courts disregarding international law when convenient. There is a strong potential for that being the outcome in this case.

    Comment by jmeprods | November 3, 2008


Leave a comment