The Spanish Constitutional Tribunal's decision in Guatemalan Generals: Unconditional universality is back

Journal of International Criminal Justice

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 586-594

  Ascensio, Hervé ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 1 PANTHÉON SORBONNE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750216744     PISSN: 14781387     EISSN: 14781395     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mql026     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 26 September 2005, available on the website of the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal: http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/JC.htm (visited 15 May 2006).
2. Audiencia Nacional, judgment of 13 December 2000
3. Tribunal Supremo, judgment of 25 February 2003. Both decisions are available on the website http://www.derechos.org (visited 15 May 2006).
4. See also my comments in 1 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2003), 690-702.
5. The three motions concerned, corresponding to different applicants, were joined by the Constitutional Tribunal on 14 March 2005 (1§-7 of the decision). There were altogether 17 individuals and 10 NGOs.
6. Constitutional Tribunal, decision in Guatemalan Generals, legal ground no. 2 ('Fundamento jurídico' 2). All decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal are divided into two parts; the second is entitled 'Fundamentos jurídicos' (legal grounds, hereinafter 'FJ' and contains the legal grounds of the decision.
7. Article 24(1) of the Spanish Constitution reads as follows: 'Todas las personas tienen derecho a obtener la tutela efectiva de los jueces y tribunales en el ejercicio de sus derechos e intereses legítimos, sin que, en ningún caso, pueda producirse indefensión'.
8. Guatemalan Generals, FJ no. 2:'... el accesso a la jurisdicción constituye un derecho prestacional de configuración legal, estando su ejercicio y su dispensacción supeditados a la concurrencia de los presupuestos y requisites que el legislator haya establecido, por lo que no vulneraría el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva una decisión de inadmissión a meramente procesal que apreciara razonadamente la concurrencia de un óbice fundado en un precepto expreso de la Ley que, a su vez, sea respectuoso con el contenido esencial del derecho fundamental...'.
9. Ibid., FJ no. 2.
10. Ibid., FJ no. 3.
11. For the constitutional case law on the proportionality test, see: Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 28 June 1999, no. 122/1999, FJ no. 2: Judgment of 13 October 2003, no. 179/2003, FJ no. 2: judgment of 14 January 2004, no. 3/2004, FJ no. 3: Judgment of 2 April 2005, no. 79/ 2005, FJ no. 2 (quoted in the Guatemalan Generals decision, at FJ no. 2).
12. Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 10 February 1997, no. 21/1997, at FJ no. 3 (case of forced boarding on the high sea against a Panamanian ship).
13. Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 27 March 2000, no. 87/2000, FJ no. 4 (Italian request of extradition against a Spanish citizen for drug-trafficking).
14. Guatemalan Generals, FJ no. 3.
15. Ibid., FJ no. 3 ('reducción teleologica').
16. Ibid., FJ no. 4.
17. Indeed, competing jurisdiction is a prerequisite before any rule on priority may apply. The Constitutional Tribunal mentions this argument but, strangely, the other way round.
18. See my comments, in this journal, supra note 2, at 695.
19. Guatemalan Generals, FJ no. 4: '... resulta indudable que existen rezones de peso, tanto procesales como político-criminales, que vienen a avalar la prioridad del locus delicti, y que ello forma parte del acervo clásico del Derecho internacional penal....'
20. Ibid., first part of the decision at 8
21. ibid., FJ no. 4.
22. Ibid., FJ nos 5-9.
23. Ibid., FJ no. 5: '... el principio de persecucción universal y de evitación de la impunidad de tal crimen de Derecho internacional, que ... preside el espíritu del Convenio y que forma parte del Derecho consuetudinario internacional (e incluso del ins cogens, según ha venido manifestando la mejor doctrina'.
24. For instance: 'el [criterio] de justicia universal se configura a partir de la particular naturaleza de los delitos objeto de persecución (FJ no. 3);'la restriceicin ... incorpora un requisito ... que ... contradice la propia naturaleza del delito' (FJ no. 8).
25. See my comments in this journal, supra note 2, at 698.
26. The law of Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany are quoted - the last one with more details.
27. Guatemalan Generals, FJ no. 7.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., FJ no. 9: First article of the German Code on international crimes adopted on 26 June 2002; resolution of the Institut de droit international adopted on 26 August 2005 at its Kraków session.