Baltasar Garzón: “Today I have my doubts, more than reasonable, about the Spanish judicial system” | Spain

The London law firm Guernica 37 Chambers, founded by Almudena Bernabéu and Toby Cadman, works around the world in defense of International Humanitarian Law. When 25 years have passed since the resolution of the Pinochet case, The firm wanted to call the legal community of the British capital to a meeting with Baltasar Garzón (Jaén, 69 years old), the former magistrate who showed the world that it was possible to bring the principles of universal justice to the practical field.

Garzón spoke with EL PAÍS in the gardens of Middle Temple, one of the four neighborhoods in London that bring together legal offices steeped in tradition and tradition.

Ask. Pinochet returned to Chile, and died in bed. Was it worth it?

Answer. The judicial history of Chile changed, an impunity that was rampant was abandoned. Hearing then the candidate Joaquín Lavín, and the entire Chilean right, who was a Pinochet supporter, demand the handover of the dictator because they wanted to judge him was already an impressive advance.

P. Today the Pinochet case It is recognized everywhere as demonstrating that universal justice was more than a well-intentioned principle.

R. Universal jurisdiction has a very important scope. It is the victims’ last bastion for justice to be done. When everything fails, there will always be a judge who, within a system that recognizes the principle of universal jurisdiction, can act to avoid impunity. But in addition, as happened in this case, progress is being made in the country of origin itself in such a way that there is no turning back.

P. And yet, 25 years later, that certain idea of ​​justice is in question, when looking at Ukraine or Gaza.

R. It will never be easy to prosecute horrendous crimes when they affect countries or leaders of countries that are going to create obstacles. We have the proof today with the arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu. The task of the International Criminal Court has once again been called into question.

P. Some suggest that it is a risk to launch an order that you will not be able to carry out.

R. Of course it is a risk. Because progress can be made, as happened with Pinochet, or with Hissène Habré of Chad, who was known as the African Pinochet, who was tried and convicted. But when universal justice fails, there is a risk of regression, although that does not mean you can stop applying it.

P. Because at these levels, justice also has some politics…

R. When countries like France, the United Kingdom, Italy or Germany question an international organization that they helped create [ya han anticipado que no aplicarán la orden de arresto contra Netanyahu] and that they finance, everything that that organization develops is called into question. It is paradigmatic that a country like the United States, which never recognized the International Criminal Court and even acted frontally against the institution during the time of George W. Bush, now says [el presidente Biden] that the decision against Putin is very good and that they support it. And yet, they see Netanyahu’s as outrageous. There is an obvious political game, but that happens in all international judicial organizations, where, no matter how much you want, there will always be a component that is not strictly legal, as there could be in the internal law of a country.

P. Today that last one no longer seems clear either…

R. Yes, I also question that there, in the domestic sphere, the jurisdiction is as aseptic and independent as some claim. Now known as lawfarebut there has always been a clear intention to exploit the law for political or economic purposes.

P. The term itself is the subject of controversy in Spain.

R. I remember that all the conservative judicial and political structures in Spain jumped in unison when they heard the term for the first time, to say that it was a lie.

My case may be an example of pre-lawfare. I was subjected to three trials and, ten years later, the UN Human Rights Committee, unanimously, says that it was a partial, arbitrary sentence, without criminal predictability, and that I was still convicted. Today, after a decision that is binding, I have not recovered my position.

P. Do you want to regain your status as a judge?

R. I have asked for it, and since it has not been granted, I will complain to the Supreme Court. A judge was condemned for an interpretation of the law that has been seen to be perfectly valid and that is internationally based on firm principles. But hey, when the time comes, we’ll see. And if not, I will ask the General Council of the Judiciary to comply with the committee’s ruling.

P. Is there a conspiracy of judges against the Government in Spain?

R. I cannot say that there is a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy against everyone on the part of the judges and prosecutors, against the current Government, but what I can say, and I refer to the facts, which are reiterated, is that many Decisions always go in a certain direction.

P. But a judge investigates, and the higher court allows him to move forward. Isn’t that the normal functioning of institutions?

R. There are certain actions that put you in that position of wondering what is happening here. Prospective investigations are tremendous. I disagree with what is happening with the judge’s investigation [que investiga a Begoña Gómez, Juan Carlos] Hairstyle and the partial acquiescence of the Provincial Court. I respect judicial independence, but I think both are wrong. What are the real facts that are attributed to this person? If there is no minimum consistency, some clues, a line of investigation… you have to close it. Even if she is the wife of the President of the Government.

P. Do you think there will be no criminal consequences?

R. Let’s see what all this turns out to be, because the elements of research change, and the only element that remains is the person. [Begoña Gómez]. And that is very dangerous. When you focus on the person and not the facts, you run the risk of falling into the criminal law of the enemy [el término acuñado por el penalista alemán Günther Jakobs para definir el derecho que persigue personas, no hechos delictivos].

P. Do you distrust the Spanish judicial system?

R. My entire life was focused on practicing as a judge, not as a lawyer. But when life goes wrong and they play tricks on you, you have to move on and reinvent yourself. Today I have my doubts, more than reasonable, about the Spanish judicial system. Not about people. I know many judges, prosecutors and officials who are not good, they are the next best thing. Without hours, without vacations, dedicated to their public service. But that does not mean that, given the path we are taking, the system is the most suitable and we have the obligation to be aware for the benefit of all.

P. Changing the subject. Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, whom you represented, ended up admitting to a crime in order not to be handed over to the United States.

R. We did not advise him to make that decision, but we understood it. In short, now he is recovering, he is still firm with his principles. I am happy to see him with his family.

P. It was a matter in which you were very involved.

R. It affected me a lot because the attack on freedom of expression and freedom of access to information was brutal. And I will always have to say that there was a lot of support initially, but later it was questioned more about the person than about the substance of the issue. They said that Julian was a very conflictive person, and I responded, and what does that have to do with it?