The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its 135th session (27 June to 27 July 2022), found on 12 July 2022 that Spain violated the peremptory right of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by violating the human right of Catalan politicians Dr Oriol Junqueras, Raül Romeva, Josep Rull and Jordi Turull guaranteed in Article 25 of that Covenant. Already in 2019, another United Nations body, the Working Group against Arbitrary Detention, had found human rights violations by Spain in two decisions and ordered the Spanish state not only to immediately release the unjustly detained Catalan politicians and adequately compensate them for their illegal detention, but in particular to initiate criminal investigations against those responsible for the illegal detention of the Catalan politicians.
The four Catalan politicians had been elected as members of the Catalan parliament on 21 December 2017. Under the pretext that they were guilty of rebellion against Spain, the competent investigating judge of the Spanish Supreme Court, Pablo Llarena, deprived them of their parliamentary mandates and had them arrested. At the time, Jordi Turull was about to be elected president of the Generalitat de Catalunya. The four Catalan politicians were never convicted of an insurrection ("rebelión"), but in a show trial, which in no way met the standards of the rule of law, by a court which had no jurisdiction under Spanish law, in the first and only (!) instance, for alleged sedition ("sedición").
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges the Spanish state to guarantee all its citizens free and equal access to public office. According to the United Nations, the Spanish Supreme Court violated this in the case of the four Catalan politicians who had only called for non-violent assemblies and demonstrations, but never for violence or an uprising. Judge Pablo Llarena's decision was therefore, in the view of the United Nations, neither conclusive nor objective, but arbitrary and without guarantee of the required impartiality.
In conclusion, the Human Rights Committee's vote is quoted in English translation:
"8.8 In light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State party has not demonstrated that the application of article 472 of the Criminal Code and the consequent application of article 384a of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the domestic courts satisfies the requirement of foreseeability under article 25 of the Covenant. Similarly, in the circumstances of the present case, an application of domestic law that automatically leads to the suspension of elected officials for alleged offences based on public and peaceful facts before a conviction has been obtained precludes an individualized examination of the proportionality of the measure and cannot therefore be considered to meet the requirements of reasonableness and objectivity. In conclusion, the Committee finds that the State party violated the authors' rights under article 25 of the Covenant, as the decision to charge the authors with the crime of rebellion, which automatically led to their suspension from public office prior to conviction, was not based on grounds that are reasonable and objective as provided by law.
9. the Human Rights Committee finds, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that the information before it discloses a violation of article 25 of the Covenant.
10 Under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is obliged to provide an effective remedy to complainants. This requires full redress for persons whose rights have been violated. The Committee considers that, in the present case, its views on the merits of the complaint provide a sufficient remedy for the violation found. The State party is also obliged to take all necessary measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
11. Considering that the State party, by acceding to the Optional Protocol, has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Covenant and has undertaken, in accordance with article 2 of the Covenant, to grant to all persons within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and legally enforceable remedy in the event that a violation is found to have occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information on the measures taken to give effect to the views of the Committee. The State party is also requested to publish the views of the Committee and to disseminate them widely."
For a long time now, the conflict between Spain and Catalonia has not been an internal Iberian problem, but a European one. A Europe that remains hypocritically silent on the massive human rights violations that Spain has committed and continues to commit in Catalonia and against Catalans loses the moral right to criticise other states outside Europe for human rights violations or to call for human rights to be respected.
Spain has long persecuted the Catalan national minority and attempted to linguistically and culturally assimilate Catalonia. Spain persecutes honourable Catalan politicians for political reasons, abusing its judiciary and the instrument of the European Arrest Warrant. Spain disregards the collective human right of the Catalan people to self-determination, which the first article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of the Spanish legal order as a mandatory right, guarantees for all peoples of Spain and thus also for the Catalan people.
And Europe remains silent and looks on!