The verdict concludes the second of three criminal cases brought against the former High Court judge. Although acquitted in this specific matter, Garzón remains a convicted criminal following a separate ruling that found him guilty of breaching his duties by illegally wiretapping conversations between defense lawyers and clients in the “Gürtel” corruption case. That conviction resulted in an 11-year disbarment, effectively ending his career as an investigating magistrate.
The Supreme Court’s panel, composed of seven judges, voted six to one in favor of the acquittal. The majority opinion stated that Garzón had the right to test new interpretations of “expansive” international human rights laws, even though the court ultimately rejected his specific interpretation. The justices affirmed that Spain’s 1977 amnesty law remains valid, despite rulings in other jurisdictions that such amnesties violate international human rights standards. By upholding the amnesty, the court declared that the investigation into the 114,000 cases of enforced disappearance between July 1936 and December 1951 was legally impermissible.
Human rights organizations reacted with sharp criticism. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch condemned the decision, arguing it ensures impunity for those responsible for Franco-era repression and violates Spain’s obligations under international law. Hugo Relva, Legal Adviser at Amnesty International, stated that the trial itself represented a blow to judicial independence, noting that there are no statutes of limitation for crimes against humanity. Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch described the court’s action as sparing itself “further embarrassment” by dropping “ill-advised charges,” while emphasizing that the real losers are the victims of the dictatorship.
Garzón, 56, had previously gained international prominence for his 1998 attempt to arrest former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. His legal troubles began in May 2010 when Spain’s General Judicial Committee suspended him after the Supreme Court accused him of willfully breaking the 1977 amnesty law. In the separate wiretapping case, the court issued a 69-page ruling accusing him of causing a “drastic and unjustified reduction in the defense’s strategy” and engaging in practices “typical of totalitarian regimes.” That conviction remains in effect, and the General Council of the Judiciary is awaiting official notification to formally remove him from the bench.
Under current Spanish law, Garzón cannot appeal the Supreme Court’s rulings in these domestic criminal matters. His legal team is considering whether to file an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. A third case, involving allegations of bribery, remains pending, though Garzón has denied all wrongdoing. The acquittal in the Franco-era case does not reverse the disbarment from the wiretapping conviction, leaving his status as a serving judge permanently compromised.
