Since May 2018 and until April 30, Argentine Fabián Salvioli, 61, has been the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Repetition. Previously, from 2009 to 2016, he was a member of the UN Human Rights Committee (he chaired it between 2015 and 2016). The report on the repeals of regional memory laws by the autonomous governments of PP and Vox, carried out with two other rapporteurs, was his last mission for the United Nations. After 15 years, he wants to do other things and explains that all this work is free—rapporteurs do not charge for what they do. As a lawyer, according to the UN portal, he has litigated cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. He answers questions from EL PAÍS on the phone from Buenos Aires, where he teaches International Law classes at the University of La Plata.
Ask. What is the genesis of this report?
Answer. It is part of the special procedures of the United Nations, the letters of allegation addressed to Governments regarding concerns about policies or regulatory projects that are contrary to the international obligations of the State in question, in this case, Spain. Information reaches us through different means: sometimes, it is the governments themselves that, in good practice, ask for technical advice to avoid falling into international responsibility.
Q. The PP assures that they have made “massive errors” because they base themselves on what the central government tells them. Vox says they are activists.
Q. We have gone to the official documents, such as the Official Gazette of Aragonwhere the repeal law 1/2024 is clearly indicated, which the president of Aragon [Jorge Azcón] says that does not exist. Doesn’t what he himself signed exist? We have examined and carried out an analysis of regulations, as we usually do with all countries. If we worked for the Government of Spain, as they say, I would not have sent notifications criticizing the democratic memory law, as I did at the time, for not moving forward so that those responsible for the crimes of Franco’s regime are judged. We do not work for any Government. We are independent people who exercise a mandate for the United Nations and we do so in an absolutely impartial manner.
Q. Once you have the report done, who do you send it to?
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
R. To the Spanish State, which are all its organs, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, so that the steps are taken to allow this type of regulations that clearly go against international obligations to remain without effect.
Q. Some regional governments, such as Aragón, have complained because you have not contacted them.
R. Communication is always done via the national State, but if those governments want to send information, it will be processed properly. The important thing is that it is reliable information, but they are denying the existence of a law that exists.
Q. That report bears the seal of the United Nations. Because?
R. Because it is the official voice of three United Nations mandates: the rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions; the Working Group on Forced Disappearances and in my case, the special rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Repetition. There are three mandates created by the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Q. What do special rapporteurs contribute to the United Nations?
R. The United Nations Human Rights Council identifies issues of concern for the international community and creates these figures of independent experts to examine situations, develop reports, visit countries, make public presentations… These are the special rapporteurs and the working groups, with a mandate established in international Human Rights law so that States fulfill their obligations in the matter.
Q. His predecessor, Pablo de Greiff, visited Spain in 2014 and produced a report that was quite critical of the memory legislation.
R. Yes. He went on an official visit and I later made a follow-up report on that visit to Spain. It was published in 2021.
Q. Do the reports of the special rapporteurs influence the universal periodic review What does the United Nations do to countries regarding human rights?
R. Decidedly. All examinations carried out on the country take into account the reports of the rapporteur, as well as those produced by the United Nations committees. This type of regulations that have been adopted in some places in Spain re-victimizes the victims and that represents a new violation of rights, which is why Spain could be subjected to complaints and condemned in international forums for this type of attitude. The responsibility of the State not only arises from acts of the executive power, it can also be from the judicial or legislative power, when enacting laws contrary to duties assumed by that State. There is no need to wait for the periodic exam. Tomorrow, they can file complaints against Spain because these laws are contrary to international obligations.
Q. In their report they warn of the danger of “revisionist and denialist theses” being imposed. Do you think that risk exists in Spain?
R. In some of the texts that we have analyzed, all mention of the Franco dictatorship is omitted. Stopping progress by marking places of memory, putting possible obstacles to the arduous work of locating graves and exhuming remains are clearly denialist attitudes anywhere in the world.
Q. They also claim that including victims of terrorism “detracts” the objective. Because?
R. Because that can be the subject of other legislation. We have no objection to establishing regulations to compensate victims of terrorism. I myself have applauded norms that compensate ETA victims in different places. What you don’t have to do is mix things up. There is a historical debt with those who were retaliated against during Franco’s regime that must be settled. What is being done is trying to make invisible, once again, those victims who have been made invisible for decades.
Q. According to the PP and Vox, the memory laws are a partisan whim that seeks to reproduce the confrontation between Spaniards, including “gerracivilismo.”
R. The United Nations does not assess whether a government is right-wing or left-wing. I have sent communications to countries of all political stripes. What it is about is enforcing international obligations. The political sign of the Government does not matter to us. Regarding the confrontation, it is quite the opposite. It is the application of the principles of Truth, Justice and Reparation, legal standards already very clearly established, which guarantees stable peace. If a State does not apply them, it simply fails to comply with international law. And reconciliation occurs when the State takes the measures that have to be taken. I don’t think there are problems between Spaniards over these issues.
Q. He has been researching these issues for many years and is familiar with the Spanish case. Have you been surprised after so long that the memory laws have been in force – the first was from 2007 – this setback in some autonomous communities?
R. It does not surprise me because they have not assumed that this is a state policy and it seems that in Spain it always depends on the political orientation of a government, which is a great shame. I have indicated many times that in Spain a truth commission would be needed to settle a historical debt. Society becomes polarized on these issues if it is not very clear that these atrocious human rights violations were massive, systematic and perpetuated over time and that their victims were left aside.
Q. Which countries offer the best examples in these matters?
R. There are countries that have done very valuable things on one level and not so much on another. For example, in the Balkans, in the former Yugoslavia, there was accountability, but there was no truth commission. In Chile or Uruguay there were good truth commissions, but no prosecution of those responsible. Argentina has a very accentuated policy in this sense, very strong memory policies, but all of that is now at risk. The important thing is to take the necessary steps because you cannot build a future by denying the past. It’s a big mistake and the past always comes back. It happens now with the victims of the Armenian genocide, for example.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Fabián #Salvioli #rapporteur #antimemory #laws #Spain #condemned #international #forums
