The Fiscal Council has approved this Thursday in a tight vote, by six votes to five, a report favorable to the new Democratic Memory Law, the rule that for the first time makes the State responsible for the exhumation of graves and annuls Francoist sentences. The opinion that endorses the law – a mandatory procedure, although the report is not binding on the Government – has had the support of the four members of the Progressive Union of Prosecutors (UPF), the head of the Fiscal Inspection, who is a member nato, and the attorney general, Dolores Delgado, confirm fiscal sources to elDiario.es.
The memory law augurs a new disagreement in the Judiciary: conservatives and progressives clash over its constitutionality
The five representatives of the majority and conservative Association of Prosecutors (AF) have voted against, who have presented an alternative text in which they object to the norm, among other reasons, due to the supposed “lack of definition” contained in the law on the Prosecutors must function in this area, since it is not very clear whether they will have a protective function (to protect the victims), supervision of public or criminal organizations, according to sources in this sector collected by Europa Press.
This rule is one of the star projects of the coalition government, which 13 years after the 2007 historical memory law tries to incorporate some of the measures repeatedly demanded by victims’ associations and alleviate the gaps that organizations such as Nations have been pointing out for years. United.
The text provides, among other things, the activation of a state plan for the exhumations of graves, the creation of a Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the crimes of the Civil War and the dictatorship “that constitute violations of human rights and International Humanitarian Law” or the “resignification” of the Valley of the Fallen that will be studied, but that “for now” will become a “civil cemetery”.
Differentiated positions in the Judiciary
After the report of the Fiscal Council, the norm is pending the opinion of the General Council of the Judicial Power (CGPJ) to be able to initiate its parliamentary procedure. However, this initiative threatens to cause a new disagreement in the governing body of the judges, where the two members appointed to prepare the report maintain, for the moment, different positions on it.
While the conservative José Antonio Ballestero has a very critical view of the draft presented last September by the Executive and even questions its constitutionality; the progressive Álvaro Cuesta is favorable to the law without prejudice to the fact that some technical corrections can be made. However, both have promised to seek an agreement to avoid bringing two antagonistic texts to the plenary session, which will have the last word, according to the sources consulted.