The Plenary of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has approved with 15 votes in favor and 6 against the report made by the members Roser Bach and Wenceslao Olea on the Draft law on Democratic Memory, a text that is very critical of some aspects of the rule, considering that they violate freedom of expression. For the members, the pro-Franco apology that certain foundations may make is protected by law as long as the victims are not humiliated.
The Judicial Power defends that the memory law violates “ideological freedom” by trying to close Francoist foundations
The matter has reached the plenary session of the governing body of the judges this Monday with a second draft, after the lack of agreement between the two speakers initially appointed to prepare their report on the draft bill, which in any case is not binding for government.
To this must be added that last April, the bill promoted by the first vice president, Carmen Calvo, obtained tight support from the progressive bloc in another consultative body, the Fiscal Council, for whose achievement the vote of the State Attorney General, Dolores Delgado.
Among the objections that the most conservative members of the Fiscal Council revealed was the lack of definition in which the law leaves the work that prosecutors must carry out in this area, since it is not very clear if they will have a protective function (to protect the victims), supervision of public or criminal organizations.
In the case of the presentation that has been discussed in the CGPJ, the greatest objections are found in the fifth additional provision of the Draft Bill, which establishes as a specific cause of extinction of the foundations “the apology of Francoism or the direct or indirect incitement to hatred or violence against the victims of the coup d’état, the war or the Franco regime, due to their condition as such “.
The members, both career magistrates, consider “it more appropriate that the administrative bodies created in matters of democratic memory, and not by the protectorate, be competent to direct the request for the termination of the foundation to the judge.” For this reason, the report highlights the need to specify the wording of this precept.