The Spanish government looks ready to cave in to Israeli pressure to ensure its criminals remain untouched, Amanda Noureddine reports from Madrid Just over a month ago, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, now acting prime minister, publicly claimed she had received the assurances she was after from her Spanish counterpart Miguel Angel Moratinos that a case in the Spanish Criminal Court against Israeli officials would not be allowed to proceed. The case in question was prepared by the internationally respected Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and then submitted in June 2008 on its behalf by Spanish organisations working in solidarity with the Palestinian and Arab cause. The organisations called for an investigation of seven former and current Israeli officials, who the litigants note killed 14 people in Gaza, including children, when they assassinated Salah Shehade, leader of Hamas's military wing the Ezzeddin Al-Qassam Brigades, dropping a one-tonne bomb over his house on 22 July 2002. It is worth noting that the case was purely centred on the killing of the 14 civilians: the extra-judicial assassination element was excluded. When the case was filed in June last year, there were barely any reports in the Spanish media. This was contrary to a growing Spanish tradition, spearheaded by the current government's wish to be associated with human rights and the adequate exercise of the law under its jurisdiction, of paying immense attention to cases filed under the law of universal jurisdiction. The Palestinians, it seemed, were not worthy of the same attention that fellow victims of abuse in Guatemala, Tibet, or Argentina had. Or rather, at the executive level Spain's sense of self-respect could only be affected if its transnational accusations were made against despotic leaders of weak countries without significant ideological ties to the European Union or the United States. More damning than the initial silence, however, was the brash declaration by the Israeli foreign minister that the case would be buried. Late in January this year, one day after the case was admitted by Spanish investigative Judge Fernando Andreu, Livni was quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying that she had just heard from Moratinos "that Spain has decided to change its legislation in connection with universal jurisdiction and this can prevent the abuse of the Spanish legal system." Moratinos prevaricated then, and to date, neither he nor any other member of the executive has adequately responded to questions by both parliamentarians and the local media related to the alleged assurance. Instead, the few substantial declarations that have transpired are themselves a cause for concern. First, Moratinos has claimed that Spain would not seek to limit the exercise of its law, but rather make a few procedural changes. Secondly, he has said that no change to the law would affect the case in point, as law is not applied retroactively. In reality, and even if the investigation is allowed to continue, once it is closed, Andreu ought to have power to request the issuance of international arrest warrants. If the Spanish Criminal Court were to formally accuse the seven Israeli officials, chief among them former defence minister and current National Infrastructure Minister Benyamin Ben-Eliezer, then there would need to be the possibility for trial. Otherwise, the case may well be filed on the basis that Spain would in reality have no power to act on its judiciary's findings. On the other hand, reports among the media, sources close to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and not least the legal community in Spain, all indicate that the Spanish government has absolutely no intention to let the case go any further than it is today. In order to bury it, the fear is that new legislation will be issued, limiting the exercise of Spain's law of universal jurisdiction, to only cover cases in which Spanish nationals or interests were involved, either as victims or as the alleged injuring party. Such a limitation would by default deny the very purpose of the exercise of universal jurisdiction. From the perspective of the global human rights movement, this area of law is significant precisely because victims of international crimes as grave as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are all too often unable to seek a legal remedy in the courts of the state whose jurisdiction they inhabit. As such, the prospect of limiting the scope of the Spanish law to cover only Spanish interests is exposed as something of a Catch-22. Several weeks on from Livni's declarations, and from an immediate reaction by some media, parliamentarians and members of civil society, Madrid is silent once more about the fate of this case. One thing for sure, Spain's so-called separation of powers, should the change in the law that Livni has requested take place, would be shown to be as shambles. And so too would the idea that victims of crimes against humanity and war crimes can find justice in another state's court. Such an eventuality would only add to the re-enforcement of what the Palestinians have been told all too many times: that they are alone in their struggle, that there is no justice to be found in the courts, and that military resistance is the only viable option.
