Garzon is still awaiting the verdict in a third case against him.
Spain’s Supreme Court threw out a bribery case against crusading human-rights judge Baltasar Garzon on Monday, after he was disbarred last week in a separate case for illegally taping suspects.
Garzon has faced three legal cases against him, and in the latest, he was charged with accepting fees for lectures he gave at a university in the United States, which were sponsored by Spanish companies involved in cases before his court.
But the Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations had expired on the charges, since they were brought in 2009, just over three years after the alleged illicit payments in 2006. Garzon, 56, had denied any wrongdoing.
Garzon is still awaiting the verdict in a third case against him, the most controversial, in which he is accused of exceeding his authority by ordering an inquiry into the murder and forced disappearance of more than 100,000 people by forces loyal to the late dictator Francisco Franco.
The high-profile investigations of Garzon, best known for bringing charges under international law against Chile’s Augusto Pinochet, have divided Spain.
Some see him as a victim of a political witch-hunt because he took on big corruption cases and probed chapters from Spain’s violent past, but others see him as an arrogant and careless judge who overstepped his bounds.
Of the three cases against him, only one has concluded. In that one, Garzon was convicted of illegally ordering the taping of conversations between defence lawyers and their clients. He was disbarred for 11 years, which may effectively end his career.
The pending case for investigating the disappearance of thousands, including renowned poet Federico Garcia Lorca, was brought by private parties who allege he violated a 1977 amnesty law. Garzon maintains he acted at the request of the victims’ families and that international law backs him.
The United Nations has urged Spain to investigate crimes against humanity committed during the Franco era and to repeal its amnesty, which it says is not in conformity with international human rights law.
The Supreme Court is now deliberating after it heard two weeks of testimony in that case and is expected to hand down a verdict within a few weeks.
buenosairesherald.com