Español | Français

The ruling absolving Judge Garzón's actions condemns Republican victims to legal inequality

On April 23rd 2010, we cited from Thomas Paine's work "Rights of Man", an indispensable reference on the ethics of civil liberties, born of the North American and the French revolutions and, in our view, of particular relevance to this situation; he wrote: "It suits his purpose (Mr Burke's purpose- the purpose of those who oppose civil liberties and republican values) to exhibit their consequences without their causes. It is one of the arts of the drama to do so. If the crimes of men were exhibited with their sufferings, stage effect would sometimes be lost, and the audience would be inclined to approve where it was intended that they should commiserate".

The 14th of December 2006 marked the beginning of the legal proceedings initiated by Maria Antònia Oliver París and Margalida Capellà i Roig as legal representatives of the Associació per la Recuperació de la Memoria Històrica de Mallorca (Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory of Mallorca). We have collected and published the subsequent vicissitudes of these proceedings on our documentation site. [See: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/impu/index.html#mall]

On January 29th 2009, the Prosecutor's Office of the Spanish National Court (Audiencia Nacional), pursuant to verbal instructions from the State Attorney General, issued its decision concerning the admissibility of the lawsuits, concluding that "in the case of the lawsuits filed, permission to proceed it is not appropriate, as pursuant to article 313 Lecrim. the Central Court of Investigation is not competent and as a consequence the case should be closed."

On September 5th 2008, the Plataforma de Víctimas de Desapariciones Forzadas (Platform of Victims of Forced Disappearances) published a communiqué in which it stated verbatim: "The 2007 'Law of Memory' ignores the tens of thousands of victims of serious international crimes, such as victims of forced disappearances or extrajudicial executions…" [See full text in the original Spanish: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/plata.html]

Since it became aware of the lawsuit, Equipo Nizkor has tried to explain that its doctrinal support was weak and certain aspects were clearly erroneous, especially given that the National Court lacked jurisdiction and that the lawsuit relied on criminal offences that did not exist in the relevant period, for example, forced disappearances; with these two elements alone, there was a risk that the lawsuit could be turned into a weapon against the victims' associations.

On February 21st [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon47.html] and April 23rd 2010 [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/declarts.html] we released communiqués in which, among other observations, we anticipated what could occur in the proceedings with respect to the cases concerning victims of the Franco regime, and tour concerns have been substantively confirmed by the Supreme Court.

In our communiqué dated November 20th 2008, we clearly warned of the following:

    "The fundamental problem [in the case at hand] is not the legal argument regarding the criminal offences but rather so-called absolute jurisdiction and, on this point, Judge Baltasar Garzón together with all the lawyers who have filed the various lawsuits before the National Court knew or should have known that the National Court does not have jurisdiction for offences of this nature committed on national territory."

Nor could they have been unaware that there was a very clear issue regarding the application of the criminal offences which was readily demonstrable: the inexistence in the period of the Second Republic and in all Europe of the criminal offence of " forced disappearance" and particularly "disappeared detainees".

All of the foregoing notwithstanding, what was brought before the Audiencia Nacional did not strictly speaking constitute criminal lawsuits, as, according to the judgment:

    "Nevertheless, since the complaints were filed, and perhaps even since the investigation phase, what has been sought here has not been the initiation of a criminal process aimed at ascertaining the criminal responsibility of specific persons, or persons who could be identified during the judicial investigation process, in respect of acts that appear to constitute crimes. Rather, what has been sought here by way of a petition for judicial protection, is the granting of the right to know the circumstances in which the relatives in question died, in much the same way as has taken place in truth hearings elsewhere. This attempt by the victims, although reasonable, cannot be granted by the criminal system as it is not the means that the legislator has provided for dealing with such legitimate claims.

    As we have pointed out, the criminal process has a specific mission: to socially and legally reproach those who are responsible for criminal offences. The right to know the historical truth is not a part of the criminal process and can only be satisfied indirectly. The requirements of the right to an effective defence, publicity, equality of parties, orality, the discipline regarding the guarantee of evidence, the essential elements of the right to a presumption of innocence, etc., as characteristics of the criminal prosecution system do not lend themselves to a declaration of historical truth concerning events as multifaceted as the civil war and the subsequent post war."

During the oral hearings before the Supreme Court, Judge Baltasar Garzón admitted three facts which clarify our observations and obviate the need for further comments:

    a) that he expressly refused to open graves;
    b) that he did not carry out any investigation;
    c) and that the 'Law of Historical Memory' is perfectly compatible with what was being investigated in his tribunal

    [See judgment 101/2012 of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, dated 27 February 2012, at: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon184.html]

These points alone demonstrate that there is a fundamental ethical and moral problem in the attitude towards victims' associations who acted in good faith and apparently under the conviction that:

    a) an order would be made to open the graves;
    b) there would be an investigation to find out "what had happened" and, of course, that this would occur in the context of criminal proceedings.

Despite our public communiqués, it was impossible to convince numerous associations that this lawsuit before the Audiencia Nacional would result in the definitive closing of all the cases and the complete nullity of the proceedings. This is precisely what we set out in our communiqué dated February 21st 2010. [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon47.html]:

The lack of objective jurisdiction could give rise to a very serious problem for the different cases comprised in these lawsuits, since pursuant to article 238.1 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (Organic Law of the Judicial Branch), just as the Prosecutor's Office of the National Court later stated, "Procedural acts will be null ipso jure." "1. When they are carried out by or before a tribunal that lacks specialised or functional jurisdiction or competence". This is precisely the situation in this case.

The Supreme Court's decision on February 27th 2012 [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon184.html] that absolves Baltasar Garzón of the accusation of breach of judicial duty ("prevaricación", i.e. to deliberately issue a decision/ruling that is contrary to law, judicial misconduct) resolves a case that should not have existed and which has now become a great defeat for the budding movement of victims of the Franco Regime and especially for the Republican victims.

In this way, the Supreme Court confirmed what we have called the "Spanish model of impunity" using an interpretation that makes it very clear that the Republican victims do not have any rights under the legal system arising from the Constitution of 1978; in other words, it confirmed that there are two categories of citizens: those that enjoy full civil rights and those who, according to the Supreme Court's interpretation, the law does not accommodate in any way, except with respect to the identification of their remains, as explained by the Supreme Court one month later, in a decision dated March 28th, 2012. [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon188.html]

Preliminary Issues

While the legal and doctrinal issues relating to these lawsuits are important, there is another essential analysis from the ethical and moral points of view with respect to the events which resulted in such a grave defeat for the associations of victims of the Franco Regime, a defeat that affects even those of us who decided not to participate in any step of this process that, as we said, began in 2006.

None of the procedural aspects concerning jurisdiction that were summarised by the Supreme Court judgement were unknown to Baltasar Garzón Real or the lawyers that represented the various organisations. Those who knew or should have known these issues include Fernando Magán Pineño, Margalida Capellà i Roig, Enrique Santiago and Joan Garcés.

This position was exacerbated, in our view, by the involvement of CC.OO. (Comisiones Obreras) and UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) in the proceedings, as, to our knowledge:

    a) Comisiones Obreras (a trade union), in a meeting held in Asturias, officially informed us that they would not participate in any action relating to the victims of the Franco Regime; and

    b) UGT (General Workers Union ), after having officially informed us that its Executive Board had approved the document "The question of impunity in Spain and crimes under Franco" [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/impuspa.html], refused to sign it.

What is technically known as a "PR campaign" was launched, which in the media included representation by the newspaper "Público", directly related to Moncloa, and the newspaper "El País". Both already had a long-standing firm position on these issues which preceded these events, about which we had been informed on various occasions by reporters from both papers.

The objective of this PR campaign was to deliberately create an unreal image of what was happening and, it did in fact, produce a false vision of the proceedings which made it clear to many associations that had refused to take part in the lawsuits, that there was a very clear political will to bring the proceedings before the Audiencia Nacional on the basis which we have set out, that there was a direct involvement from Moncloa with the support of the Izquierda Unida (United Left) and the PCE (Communist Part of Spain), and which sought to:

    a) legitimise the so-called "Law of Memory".
    b) create the "image" that there is a group of associations recognised as the sole representatives of the victims, which were those linked directly to the exhumations.
    c) substitute the actual conflict of the victims of the Franco Regime with another that would put Judge Garzón at the centre, thereby conflating the need for justice in the collective imagination with the defence of Judge Garzón, and which reached its climax with the demonstrations instigated by the Government.
    d) The use, for these purposes, of financial resources to promote the campaign both within Spain, in other European countries (France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, among others) and in Latin America, in particular Argentina, where, from the Spanish Embassy in Buenos Aires, with the support of the Ministry of Justice and, of course, the newspaper "El País", it was even possible to manipulate the cases of the Spanish victims of the Argentine Dictatorship. [See interview with Bárbara García from April 27th 2008 in its original Spanish: http://www.radionizkor.org/arg/index.html#barbara]

The campaign met its greatest setback when the Supreme Court accepted unanimously the lawsuit for breach of judicial duty ("prevaricación") initiated against the Judge Baltasar Garzón by extreme right groups and by the Falange Española y de las JONS (Spanish Phalanx of the Assemblies of the National Syndicalist Offensive). In fact, many citizens learned for the first time that the Spanish Falange was a legal political party and that it had never been made illegal.

The direct consequences of these events are exactly those we predicted in our communiqué on February 21st 2010:

    "There exists, therefore, a serious danger that the Supreme Court, instead of limiting itself to considering the objective issue of jurisdiction of Judge Baltasar Garzón in relation to these lawsuits from 2006, will enter into issues of substance and use this case to reject the application of the criminal classification of crimes against humanity to the crimes committed by the Franco Regime."

This is exactly what the Supreme Court has done in its judgment of February 27th 2012 absolving Judge Baltasar Garzón [See: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon184.html]

The supporters of the Law of Memory

Our position regarding this law is known; nevertheless it is appropriate to recall the specific communiqués that we published on this topic in order not to repeat the entire line of argument anew.

They are:

It is publicly known that the members of parliament Gaspar Llamazares Trigo and Joan Herrera Torres of the parliamentary group IU-ICV (United Left and Initiative for Catalonia Greens), as well as the parliamentary members of the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) led by Ramón Jáuregui and the then Vice President María Teresa Fernández de la Vega were the proponents and artisans of this aberrant law and we should also include at least the former anti-corruption public prosecutor, Carlos Jiménez Villarejo, and the judge José Antonio Martín Pallín.

The said law was passed in Parliament by all of the parliamentary groups with the sole opposition of the member of parliament from Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (Republican Left of Catalonia), Joan Tardà i Coma [See in Spanish: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/aprobacion.html#TARDA] and the abstention of the Grupo Popular (People's Party) [See document with the full original audio speeches http://www.radionizkor.org/impuesp/index.html#debate2 and the transcription http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/aprobacion.html]

In spite of this, the Garzón case was turned into the principal case on the subject. In other words, the victims were substituted by the conflict created by the lawsuit against judge Garzón.

Thus, all of them appeared in public opinion to be defenders of a "criminal investigation" of the events that occurred during the Franco Regime, which is absolutely false given its political alignment to the defence of the Law of Memory which recognises the legality of all Francoist legislation and of course the so-called "Amnesty Law".

In addition to the above, we must include the affirmation by the Supreme Court, that by commencing the lawsuits in question " what has been sought here has not been the initiation of a criminal process aimed at ascertaining the criminal responsibility of specific persons".

It is clearly an ideological fraud to defend the "Law of Memory" and at the same time to seek an investigation of the crimes committed. In addition to confusing the victims and all citizens, it provokes a series of reactions that have no rational basis and a negative perception which has the desired effect: the demobilisation and destruction of the associations of Republican victims.

The Spanish model of impunity

The consequences of this entire process, which at the most can be considered contrived, are obvious: the confirmation of the Spanish model of impunity exactly as we advised in our document "The question of impunity in Spain and crimes under Franco", made public on April 14th 2004 [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/impuspa.html], which we expressly ratify in its entirety and, in particular, in response to certain statements made in the judgement absolving Baltasar Garzón that are doctrinally false:

    1) It is not true that the law of amnesty complies with the principle of legality and even less so that it is applicable to those responsible for crimes of the Franco Regime.
    2) It is not true that the Kingdom of Spain that emerged in 1978 is not bound by the so-called "Nuremberg principles", [See http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/impuspa.html] and European doctrine of "War crimes".
    3) It is not true that the Kingdom of Spain that emerged in 1978 can ignore the resolutions of the United Nations describing the Franco Regime, particularly 39(I), according to which: "... (a) In origin, nature, structure and general conduct, the Franco regime is a fascist regime patterned on, and established largely as a result of aid received from, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Fascist Italy."

We believe that the Supreme Court exploited a lawsuit in which these points were not raised in order to reach a "final solution" with respect to the issues arising from the recognition of the Franco Regime and the crimes it committed, taking further advantage of the fact that there was no procedural representation of the victims, nor was there even a criminal investigation process. In this we can observe the illegitimate use of the Supreme Court's powers given that it needed only to consider the lack of competence of Judge Baltasar Garzón for not complying with article 65 of the LOPJ (Organic Law of the Judicial Branch) and that this had already been addressed and rectified by the Criminal Division of the National Court, as the Supreme Court itself mentioned in paragraph 3 (Legal Grounds) of its decision to absolve Judge Garzón.

The doctrinal basis for each of these statements is detailed in the report "The question of impunity in Spain and crimes under Franco" where a more comprehensive explanation of the legal theory can be found, and which is available on our documentation site in Spanish, French and English.

The exhumations and the role of the natural judge

Making the "issue of the exhumations" into the central focus of the issue of the victims of the Franco Regime is a grave error which is made manifestly obvious by the decision of the Supreme Court of March 28th 2012 [See in Spanish: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon188.html], which confirms that the natural judges of the location where the events took place have the jurisdiction to exhume and identify the victims of the Franco Regime, independently of the fact that the said judges have not complied with the criminal law relating to the remains of victims of serious crimes or even with forensic regulations.

Only two courts - Court No. 3 in Granada in the Lorca case, and Court No. 2 in San Lorenzo de El Escorial - among the many in whose jurisdiction there were lawsuits and/or exhumations, referred to the Supreme Court the issue of whether they had jurisdiction for these cases as a consequence of the recusal made by the then judge of the JCI No. 5 of the National Court, D. Baltasar Garzón Real. The ruling of March 28th 2012 referred to above, has its origins in these consultations to the Supreme Court.

What makes this even more serious is that there have been hundreds of exhumations in Spain and some proceedings in which the "natural judges" refused to apply the forensic regulations thereby making the exhumations illegal. [See documents of the Benagéber case http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/benageber/]

The principle that the natural judge is the one located where the relevant acts took place is a basic principle of the rights and civil liberties recognised since the French Revolution, as opposed to the absolute right to choose judges and create exceptional jurisdictions, which was transformed by Carl Schmitt into the modern "state of exception", the foundation of National Socialist and Francoist laws which has re-emerged as the basis for legislation post 9/11, the most representative example being that of the detainees in Guantánamo.

This decision by the Supreme Court should put an end to the illegal exhumations, which have resulted in the destruction of evidence of the crimes committed by the Franco Regime. Such activities have been widely broadcast by the media and have even received most of the funding made available by Moncloa for purposes relating to " historical memory". In this way, as we have said, the illegal exhumations have been turned into the central theme that has allowed the concealment of the fundamental issue, which is the legal recognition of the victims.

From the rationale applied in the decision of March 28th 2012 that resolved the issue of jurisdiction, the following points are worth highlighting:

    "The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power" of November 29th 1985 of the United Nations General Assembly advocates for the establishment and strengthening, where necessary, of "judicial and administrative mechanisms... to enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and accessible."

    "Similarly, and with more precision and detail, the 2000 Resolution of the Commission on Human Rights. And above all, the 2006 Resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly regarding the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law".

Both resolutions precede the "Law of Memory" and were deliberately ignored by the "fathers" of this law, by the "fathers" of the "Inter- Ministerial Commission" and, of course, by numerous judges, prosecutors and lawyers, thereby constituting a per se objective demonstration of the manifest bad faith of those who established this new doctrine of impunity and injustice.

This decision starkly illustrates the basis of the nullity of the so-called "Law of Memory" and the need to implement the provisions of our "Plan of Action" in which we set out the following points:

  • 1. The ratification of the "Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity".
  • 2. A declaration in law that all legal acts of the Francoist regime are null and void, with express reference to the Resolutions of the United Nations unanimously adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of the United Nations on 9th February 1946 [Res. 32(1)] and 12th December 1946 [Res.39(1)], and to the criminal nature of the regime according to the norms of international law.
  • 3. A declaration that all the criminal and military trials (of the regime) are null and void for having been arbitrary and illegal and the adoption of appropriate measures to achieve proportionate and updated compensation for the victims as well as the reconstruction of the relevant criminal and judicial archives.
  • 4. The drafting of legislation to deal with the exhumation and identification of victims. Such legislation must consider the types of crimes, the necessary knowledge of the truth and set out procedures in accordance with international law of human rights.
    Such legislation must also deal with the different types of graves - clandestine, official etc. and resolve the issues of the common graves which resulted from the extermination plan, the illegal burials and the common graves of the regular soldiers at the front lines.
  • 5. The compiling of a Manual of Forensic Anthropology in accordance with international human rights standards, war crimes and the historical context of the 2nd. Republic and the Franco regime. Such a Manual must make it possible to classify the exhumations of the graves in accordance with the respective criminal investigation according to the type of crime and the victims, whether civilians or regular soldiers at the front line.
  • 6. Legal measures to standardize DNA data-banks for the identification of victims resulting in judicial registration of the samples from the victims' remains, as well as from the family members who request the taking of such samples, and creating identification parameters out of the forensic anthropological and sociological practise.
  • 7. The enacting of a law recognising the existence of concentration and forced labour camps; also, the reconstruction of the processes inside the camps and their victims is necessary.
  • 8. Declassification and cataloguing of all diplomatic, military and intelligence archives up to the date of the establishment of the democratic regime.
  • 9. Inventory, cataloguing and reorganization, using appropriate current technology, of criminal, judicial, prison, military, intelligence, municipal etc. archives at all levels of administration, in accordance with the laws of the right to truth and justice for the victims.
    There must be recognition of free access to the archives and a legal obligation on the part of those responsible for such archives to co-operate with the victims, family members, victims' organizations, human rights organizations and national or foreign judicial systems.
  • 10. Reconstruction of the lists of Spanish victims in other countries as a consequence of the Franco regime, particularly including the so-called "children of the war", and requesting, where necessary, international co-operation, especially in the area of Europe, for which organizations of exiles or foreign organizations which have co-operated with Republican exiles should be relied upon.
    The State of Spain must also proceed to the legal regularization of problems of Spanish nationality resulting from exile and problems arising from the registration of Spaniards with lawful authorities of the 2nd. Republic, allowing the right to maintain dual nationality in all such cases (both, for exiles and their descendants).
  • 11. Reconstruction of the lists of victims and those who suffered reprisals from the time of the Francoist uprising, in a legally valid format providing legal and effective recognition and with particular concern for minors, orphans and women.
  • 12. Adaptation of the laws concerning civil registries to ensure the correct identification of causes of death.
  • 13. Establishment of an inventory of assets which were looted, embargoed or pillaged for political or religious reasons or in reprisals.
  • 14. Establishment of laws which permit the recuperation of and indemnification for (at the cost of the State or of those responsible if they exist), assets looted from physical or legal persons for political or religious reasons or in reprisals of any kind.
  • 15. Legislation which gives recognition to all military personnel who loyally served the 2nd. Republic restoring them to their historical position and acknowledging their proper status for all purposes.
  • 16. Legislation which gives recognition to all military personnel and non-regular forces of Spanish origin who co-operated with allied countries in resistance against the Axis countries and the Franco regime, granting them the same legal, military and social treatment as was provided in countries such as France.
  • 17. Reconstruction of the commanders of all Francoist organizations both inside and outside Spain, in order to facilitate the right to truth and the gaining of knowledge about the perpetrators of crimes against humanity.
  • 18. Determination of a system of economic compensation actualized in actuarial terms and conforming with current economic and social reality in Spain, for all victims who are still alive, their heirs and families, and the adoption of all necessary measures for social and cultural recognition, as well as the identification, cataloguing and declaration as historical patrimony of those places which represent the struggle in defence of the Republic and against the Francoist repression.

Some Conclusions

- The principal issue relating to the Republican victims and, in general, to the victims of the Franco Regime, as set out in our 2004 document, is their legal recognition by the Spanish government.

- This recognition necessarily implies complying with a series of legislative measures such as those proposed in point VI) of the "Plan of Action" [See: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/impuspa.html]

- The current state of affairs is no more than a consequence of the lack of ethical, moral and legal responsibility of parliamentary political groups who supported the so-called "Law of Memory". The law offers no legislative solution to the main aspects of the issue of the victims of the Franco Regime, leaving the victims and their relatives utterly defenceless and even seeks to distance them from common European history and especially from the solutions that were adopted in this area in those countries that suffered fascist and National Socialist regimes, as we stated in our communiqué on September 1st 2006, entitled "Between moral cowardice and illegality". [See: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/illegal.html]

- The political parties represented in parliament must reflect profoundly on the perverse consequences of these kinds of actions which increase the democratic deficit existing since the so-called transition and the consequence of which is that the citizens come to conclude that civil liberties, democratic principles and human rights are in reality part of a "democracy under the guardianship" of an illegal regime such as Francoism.

- Legal actors (lawyers, prosecutors, judges etc.) must at the very least operate in compliance with the deontological norms that oblige them to act in good faith and to advise social organisations to act judicially without inducing them to commit serious and insuperable procedural errors that, as in this instance, have had as a consequence the legal consolidation of the Spanish model of impunity thereby producing the worst defeat of the movement against the impunity that arose in 2004.

- The fact that the Republican victims are not accepted as such, and, as a result, there is an obvious inequality before the law, which will have profound and perverse impacts on Spanish society.

- The fact that not all strategies are correct nor do they all have as their objective the legal recognition of the Republican victims, which serves to confirm that it is essential to strengthen the fight for civil liberties in the widest sense of the expression, recovering the principles of republican ethics and the inherent civil liberties.

- We expressly call upon associations that have acted in good faith not to lose hope for justice and to widen their field of action to the defence of republican civil liberties necessary to face the profound crisis in which the entire system that arose out of the so-called "democratic transition" is now submerged. This crisis affects the legitimacy of that system insofar as it recognises the legality of the Franco Regime as is demonstrated by the Law of Memory, an illegitimate act which has provoked a moral and social crisis with serious economic repercussions for the most disadvantaged classes.

- The legal recognition of the Republican victims and of the victims of the Franco Regime is not incompatible with the historical analysis of the past, but in no way can historians substitute the legal system. There are few historical events as well studied as the Spanish Civil War and the Franco Regime, and yet, there are historians who seek to substitute justice in a way inappropriate to their profession which conduct can only be described as arrogant.

- We confirm the position we set out in the "Plan of Action" contained in our 2004 document [http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/impuspa.html] and would re-affirm that all aspects contained in this analysis of impunity in Spain could be resolved without modifying the 1978 Constitution and that, therefore, they depend exclusively on the political will of parliamentary groups to resolve the same in good faith.

Equipo Nizkor - April 14th 2012

Organisations presenting this document:
  • AfarIIREP - (Association of Relatives and Friends of the 2nd. Republic Victims of Reprisals by the Franco Regime), Ana Viéitez Gómez, president.
  • Asociación Memoria Andando, Jean Vaz, president.
  • Association for the creation of an Archive of the Civil War, the International Brigades, the Children of the War, the Resistance and the Spanish Exile. AGE (Archive of War and Exile), Dolores Cabra, Secretary General
  • Federación Asturiana Memoria y República (FAMYR)
  • Verdad y Justicia de Valladolid (Valladolid Truth and Justice)

Donaciones Donaciones Radio Nizkor

Impunidad y crímenes franquistas
small logoThis document has been published on 04Sep12 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.