Spain went before the United Nations Human Rights Council on January 21 for its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and faced tough questions on many different human rights issues in the country. The UPR is a process undertaken by the Human Rights Council to review the human rights record of each UN member country every four years. During the review, the Council may ask questions of the country and issue recommendations. The state under review may accept the recommendations or not, and should provide periodic updates on the implementation of those recommendations it accepts. The UPR was established in 2005; this is the second time Spain has been subject to review (the first time was in 2010). Rights International Spain contributed information some months ago for consideration in this process.
The recommendations made in this oral session were drawn up in a report written jointly by the troika, consisting of rapporteurs from Sierra Leon, the United Kingdom and the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia. Below we briefly summarize the principle recommendations and the oral responses made by the Spanish delegation on matters related to the work of Rights International Spain. We will have to wait until June to know which recommendations Spain accepts and which it does not.
Summary removals from Ceuta and Melilla and their legalization through the amendment to the Law on Public Security: Various countries (among others, Israel, Sweden, Thailand, Austria and Canada) expressed their concern with these practices, recommending that Spain guarantee access to asylum and that it respect the principle of non-refoulement (non-deportation of persons to countries in which they might suffer severe human rights violations) as well as the other rights and safeguards that apply to migrant persons, which Spain is obliged by international human rights law to respect. The Spanish representative responded to this point saying that the "denial of entry" occurs before the migrants reach Spanish territory, and therefore immigration legislation applies to those migrants who do enter through the border (here we might ask how it is possible that Spain act and legislate in a territory which it claims to be foreign). Regarding the amendment that would legalize these practices, the representative affirmed that it was under review, and that the final text would agree with the principles of international human rights law and with the rights of refugees.
Racial and ethnic discrimination: Many countries expressed their concern for the situation of racism and xenophobia in Spain (among others, Brazil, Egypt, Ivory Coast and Iran). Certain important legislative gaps were emphasized, such as the absence of an overreaching Equality Law or legislation against ethnic discrimination. The absence of statistics that might help to prevent discrimination or racial and ethnic profiling by police was also noted. The Spanish delegation outlined a series of measures that they have been promoting to this effect in recent years (Observatory against Racism and Xenophobia, opinion surveys regarding immigration and ethnic minorities, public prosecutors specialized in discrimination, etc.). There was no response, however, to the specific measures that were recommended, such as the eradication of racial profiling or the improvement of anti-discrimination regulations.
2nd National Human Rights Plan and mechanisms for fulfilling international human rights recommendations: Throughout the session, some countries, such as Greece and Indonesia, also brought up the need for Spain to approve, without delay, a second Human Rights Plan (to which the government had committed itself at the beginning of this administration). Other countries—among them Paraguay and Portugal—recommended, in a more general sense, the creation of mechanisms which might serve to fulfill and provide follow-up for the human rights recommendations made by international organizations. The Spanish delegation abstained from making any comments on these recommendations.
Solitary confinement: The practice of solitary confinement drew the attention of various states; some even recommended the abolition of this practice (as in the case of Iran and the Czech Republic). The Spanish representative made reference to the present reform of the Law of Criminal Proceedings (which upholds this measure), to the exceptional character of this measure, and to the judicial supervision of persons held in this regime. There was no comment, however, on the possibility of abolishing the practice, nor of recognizing minimal safeguards—among these, access to basic rights—in relation to this regime in order to prevent torture and abuses, as various international human rights entities have repeatedly demanded.
Torture and other abuses of persons deprived of liberty: Countries such as Ireland, Holland, France and Australia commented on the lack of safeguards to guarantee that cases of torture be investigated and compensated, and to avoid police impunity. Some recommended the establishment of mechanisms to oversee and control police actions. This issue was also greeted with absolute silence on the part of the Spanish delegation.
Transitional justice and forced disappearances: Several countries referred to the lack of mechanisms for guaranteeing justice, truth, and reparations to the victims of enforced disappearances and other international crimes committed during the civil war and the Franco regime, and for guaranteeing that these not be repeated. Some countries (including Switzerland, Chile, France and Argentina) cited the need to fulfill the recommendations of the UN in this regard. The Spanish delegation made no comments on this; it restricted itself to mentioning the inclusion within the penal code of the new criminal category of enforced disappearance (it should be noted that this document includes a definition of the crime which is insufficient to satisfy the demands of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance).
The Law on Public Security and restrictions on the freedoms of expression and assembly: There were also expressions of concern (from the Czech Republic, Serbia, Chile, Costa Rica, Switzerland and others) regarding the restrictions placed on the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly by the proposed Law on Public Security, currently being considered by the Senate. Some of these countries also made reference to the degree of police violence used in demonstrations, and the need to improve the human rights education of these civil servants. This issue, despite the insistence of the participating states, was not addressed at all in the Spanish delegation’s responses.
Sexual and reproductive rights: Countries such as Switzerland and Slovenia congratulated Spain for withdrawing a proposed law that would have impeded many women from access to safe and legal abortions. Slovenia expressed concern with the lack of contraceptive use among young people, recommending that sexual education be included in the educational system. These issues were also not addressed by the Spanish delegation.
