An account is requested of the Kingdom of Spain from the United Nations to ascertain whether international human rights commitments and treaties are being properly implemented. This topic was discussed last week in Sarriko, in an interesting master of the UPV/EHU. In preparing what should appear in this Master, I have had the opportunity to complete a personal review of the transition process, and here are some conclusions.

This State in force, called the Kingdom of Spain, is a cut and sewn suit tailored to the previous robust body, and not a universal pattern suit (rule of law). In fact, in the years 1969-1979 the concrete measures of the body were adopted (proclaiming himself king, defining and agreeing the intangible nuclei of the State, creating a deformed suit..). This was the main part of the operation, and the most delicate, in which several experts worked skilfully in the Modisto trade, Adolfo Suárez and at the service of the State. Intangible main columns: That the unity of Spain, the monarchic institution, the king and the exclusive heritage of violence be in the hands of the State. From there, the scenario had to be adapted enough to be compared to the models of the rule of law. The legalizations of the parties were graduated, models of autonomy of submission were invented and, in the last phase, the integration of the Kingdom of Spain into the international rights systems was carried out, approving in 1977 the UN International Treaties and in 1986 in the European Union.

The Kingdom of Spain has never internalised the basic rules of the rule of law. He sufficed with a very decent suit, while those two clubs in Europe and the United Nations functioned as exclusive clubs of states. But when he has had to test his democratic character, seams appear to explode in the renewed suit of the Kingdom of Spain. It is curious, more in detail, where the yarns are being broken.

The Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have been neutralised by Spain, despite some rulings and remarks against it, thanks to the cooperation of certain allied states and the election of subordinate judges. On the contrary, Spain has been facing serious problems in certain European states, and it has highlighted the serious cracks it suffers both in the division of powers and in the foundations of the democratic system.

In the United Nations, however, the crisis in the Kingdom of Spain can occur most. Above all, in 1977, it signed at that significant moment in the transition, within the framework of the International Treaties on Civil and Political Rights. In fact, many of the victims and subjects of the most acute conflicts in the Spanish state, be they individuals or collectives, direct their claims to this section of the United Nations, and not to the Strasbourg Court, for the reasons set out above. And they're inventing it, because I think they have a chance to get support on that path. The Spanish authorities have no arguments or means to paralyse these demands before the UN. These International Agreements mean comprehensive and advanced regulation of individual and collective rights, from the right to self-determination to freedom of expression, unfounded detention and imprisonment or gender and social rights. In addition, they cannot be considered as foreign “external” laws that are not complied with. They become internal rules from the moment of signature, which are placed in the state hierarchy above the internal laws themselves. Furthermore, the UN decisions in these matters are not the responsibility of the judges who depend on the States. In Geneva, it is the independent experts of the UN who take these decisions on the armed conflict. Something comes along this way...