Some thoughts on the Garzon lovefest: next step the ICC?

In recent weeks, the media and the human rights community have concerned themselves with the case against well-known Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, famous among other things for initiating proceedings against former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet. I've mostly read expressions of support for the Judge, but they generally confuse the different issues under consideration.

Apparently, what Garzon is being prosecuted for is for having initiated an investigation into disappearances that occurred during the Spanish Civil War and the Franco era, therefore exceeding his jurisdiction because of a 1977 Spanish Amnesty Law covering these crimes. This situation raises several questions.

The first one, that all have put forward, is the validity of the amnesty in relation to international law. More specifically, are national amnesties for international crimes, more particularly crimes against humanity, contrary to international law? A lot has been written on this issue and this is not the place to answer the question. I have written an article expanding on the different aspects to be considered. In a nutshell, I don't think this is a relevant question in the context of the Spanish national system. IF, and I insist, IF, amnesties for crimes against humanity are deemed contrary to international law, the main consequence is that thet won't be recognised by another State's courts, or by international tribunals. It does not mean that they are not applicable in the legal system of the country that adopted them, in our case, Spain (and as an aside comment, anybody who has actually read the decisions on amnesties issued by the SCSL should be weary in referring to them, given their obscure drafting and debatable legal reasoning…).

More importantly, the international illegality is irrelevant in the national setting in relation to the specific procedure that undoubtedly exists to challenge the legality of a norm. Even if the amnesty is illegal under Spanish law, whose role is it to contest this amnesty? In most of the reports I've read, commentators seem to forget that Garzon is not an investigative judge of the world community, he is an investigative judge of Spain, and is an agent of its judicial system. Some have argued that the current proceedings run counter to judicial independence. But judicial independence does not mean unaccountability. A Spanish investigative judge cannot act beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of Spanish law and go beyond the powers vested into him by Spanish Law. It is not his role to contest this law. If Human Rights organisations, or victims' groups want to file a complaint in national courts opposing the legality of the 1977 Amnesty, fair enough, it is their role, not that of an investigative judge.

Another point that is highlighted in most commentaries, is the fact that "The charges were brought by two far-right groups who fear an open investigation of the Franco-era record" (NY Times Editorial) and that "allowing politically motivated groups to use the courts to intimidate magistrates and pre-empt investigations into past injustices appears to be a step backwards for human rights". Of course I don't have any sympathy for the far-right Francoist groups who brought the allegations before the court, but I find this remark a little disingenuous, or at the very least, naive. Courts are open to everybody, irrespective of whether one likes the person or group. When Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch file Amicus Curiae before national or international courts in favor of a certain position, they also are "politically motivated" (this would require some discussion on the useful but illusory narrative that human rights are "apolitical"...). They are also trying to "intimidate" dictators into not committing war crimes. Everybody has an agenda, and I refuse to deny legal standing based on my personal ethical evaluation of the ideological content of an organisation.

Finally, many have pointed out that Spain must face its past in order to move forward. Probably. But once again, how is that relevant to evaluating whether Judge Garzon has gone beyond his mandate in the existing legal setting? If that is his fight, he should quit and join activist groups that rightly call for more accountability for the Franco-era crimes. If he takes the risk of working on the fringes of legality, as an agent of the judicial system, he must bear the consequences of his actions.

In summary:

1) Yes, amnesties for crimes against humanity might be contrary to international law, 2) yes, one can argue that Spain's amnesty law prevents the country from facing its past, but 3) Garzon is not a human rights body (such as the Inter-american court of human rights) whose function is to evaluate these issues, 4) Garzon is not a political leader or human rights activist whose function is to promote change, 5) he is an investigative judge of the system, whose function is to investigate within the existing legal framework, and thefore 6) if he goes beyond his function, whatever the valid moral reasons to do so, he should bear the consequences and 7) if he's not happy with the existing legal framework, he should quit.

However much Garzon and his supporters have wanted to portray him as a world crusader against impunity, functionally, he is "only" a Spanish investigative judge. If he wants to campaign against amnesties in the international legal order (a perfectly legitimate goal), he should leave and continue his campaign as an international activist. Personally, and I know that might seem a little far fetched, I see some parallels between Garzon and Ocampo in portraying themselves as lone crusaders against the forces of evil. It must be an Hispanic cultural trait that could be called the Don Quichotte Complex, but that could be the topic of another post.With all this in mind, I'll take a side bet on the Garzon affair paving the way for him replacing Moreno Ocampo at the ICC. He would fit the bill perfectly in terms of experience and he would not be hindered by petty considerations of respecting national rules on sovereignty, amnesties or immunities.... Any thoughts on that?