Informative note from the Spanish Solidarity Movement on the Spanish Minister of Interior’s response regarding Spanish responsibility for Western Sahara

This post is also available in: Español (Spanish) Português (Portuguese (Portugal))

PUSL.- After the Association of Friendship with the Saharawi People of Seville (AAPSS), took knowledge from the press on 29 July about the Minister of the Interior’s visit to Morocco and the article “Visit to Morocco: what Marlaska said about Sahara as a judge “(read here) and the answer to the question (read here) by the Senator of the ERB Parliamentary Group AAPPSS decided to prepare an information note to which several organizations from the Spanish Solidarity Movement joined.

This information note was the possible and necessary response to this new crime committed against the Saharawi people and against the reason for international legality in the case of the decolonization of Western Sahara.

The information note transcribed below was sent to the media, political groups, movements and social networks, among others.

According to AAPSS, “no one is superfluous in this work of solidarity with our brothers from the former 53rd province of Spain” and it was essential that this “falsehood” had an immediate response.

The Spanish Government lies: Spain is the Administering Power of Western Sahara.

The Government of Spain lies in the answer to a Qquestion from Senator Elejebarrieta.
August 7, 2020

On June 17, 2020, Senator Gorka Elejebarrieta Díaz, presented a written question about the forced disappearance of Basiri, a Spanish citizen, that occurred 50 years ago in the Spanish Sahara.

The Government’s response, communicated on July 24, 2020, is absolutely unpresentable, mendacious, and lacks the slightest knowledge of the facts that it takes for certain.

This ignominious response, lack of rigor and contrasted arguments, reveals the category of who govern us, being it one of the two:

1) Either it is the result of ignorance of the person in charge, or those responsible for its writing. Which is serious, since it translates into a lack of respect for a legitimate and desirable action, such as that of the rulers responding to the citizens’ demands for information; in this case, conveyed by a Senator, who represents his constituents and the Parliamentary Group to which he belongs.

2) Or (and this is even more worrying, if possible), that the response has been prepared, knowingly, in the terms and with the fallacious statements it contains.

Ignorance of the rules is inexcusable, but misrepresenting and lying, to try to evade them, is unforgivable, and probably legally punishable, since it makes, knowingly, a neglect of the commitments and obligations in terms of compliance with International legality by part of this Government.

It is extremely ignoble to ignore, misinform, and make International Legislation, United Nations Resolutions, etc. opaque. These practices of the Government of a State, which is defined as Social and Democratic of Law, show us the contempt for the society to which it owes respect, to which it must respond with the truth in its legitimate requests for information; And let’s not say where, with this way of operating, the observance of the system of Rights and Obligations with international legality remains.

Analyzing in detail the literal tenor of the Response, a set of “faults to the truth” are exposed (because it is soft, we do not qualify it as gross lies), in such a way that, by being registered in official documents, it is intended to give a letter of nature to a falsehood, which by publishing it in an official document, ends up turning what is a manifest falsehood into an “official truth”.

From the first paragraph, the Response ignores the legal situation of our country, with respect to Western Sahara, we want to think that it is due to ignorance, because if it is intentional, it is very serious, as we have pointed out above (in democracy, deceiving the knowing citizenship; it can even be a criminal offense). So:

“The wording of the question refers to an alleged responsibility of Spain over Western Sahara, so it is necessary to clarify that Spain considers itself detached from all international responsibility in relation to the administration of Western Sahara since the letter sent on 26 February 1976 by the Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations to the Secretary General of the UN. In this it was reported that “the Spanish Government, as of today, definitively terminates its presence in the Territory of the Sahara and deems it necessary to record of the following: Spain is considered to be detached from all responsibility of an international nature in relation to the administration of said Territory, upon ceasing its participation in the temporary administration that was established for it. “

Do not know, or want to hide that

“The Madrid Accords have not transferred the sovereignty of Western Sahara nor have they granted any of the signatories the status of administering power, a status that Spain cannot transfer unilaterally.” (Resolution S / 2002/161 of the United Nations Legal Department) .

The Government’s Response ignores that the Declaration of Principles of November 14, also known as The Tripartite Agreements of Madrid, was never published in the BOE. However, its content was referred to the Security Council and is included in the annual report S / 11880, which is echoed by the Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly 3458 (A and B), which took note of it and reiterated that Spain, in its capacity as Administering Power, continues to be obliged to guarantee the inalienable right to Self-Determination of the Sahrawi People expressed through a democratic and impartial referendum in the Territory.

He is also unaware or wants to hide, that the aforementioned Resolution (S / 2002/161) makes explicitly clear:

“On February 26, 1976, Spain informed the Secretary General that, with effect from that date, it had terminated its presence in Western Sahara and renounced its responsibilities with respect to the Territory, thus effectively leaving it under the administration of Morocco and Mauritania in the areas that each of them controlled. After the withdrawal of Mauritania from the Territory in 1979 and the conclusion of the Mauritanian-Saharawi agreement of August 19, 1979 (S / 13504, Annex I), Morocco has administered the Territory of Western Sahara alone. Morocco, however, does not appear as the administering Power of the Territory on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and, therefore, has not transmitted the information on the Territory provided for in section e ) of Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations “

According to the jurisprudence of the General Council of the Judiciary (NATIONAL HEARING PENAL ROOM PENAL FULL GOVERNMENT RECORD 17/2014 ROLL 8/2014 OF SECTION SECOND ORDINARY PROCEDURE n ° 80/2013 Central Court of Instruction n ° 2 AUTO N º 40/2014), the current Minister of the Interior, the Judge of the National Court Fernando Grande Marlaska Gómez, in the foundations of Law in Order of the National Court (AAN 256/2014) read the following:

“Spain continues to be the Administering Power of the territory, and as such, until the end of the decolonization period, it has the obligations set forth in Articles 73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter, including providing protection, including jurisdictional, to its citizens against all abuse, for which it must extend its territorial jurisdiction for acts such as those referred to in the complaint to which this procedure is contracted. “

Also Auto 40/214 itself refers to how the UN rules the Madrid Accords as null:

“[The UN] has maintained a uniform position on the” Madrid Tripartite Agreement “by ruling that it is null, without legal effectiveness, consequently, it has always considered Spain as the administering Power”.

In short, the answer to Senator Elejebarrieta’s question reveals an attitude of laziness, lack of coordination and lack of interest in resolving the commitment to end the last colony in Africa.

Where has it been documented who, on behalf of the Government, has issued this Official Response? Has it occurred to any of those who issued the Response to take conscientious advice, or to ask a member of the Government such as Mr. Grande-Marlaska, what the legal situation of Western Sahara was?

Why, when faced with a question about a Spanish citizen (fifty years ago the Sahara was a province as Spanish as Cuenca or Barcelona), instead of answering with what is known, the measures that have been carried out, or are being carried out, to find out the health status and whereabouts of a national, it is dispatched with a “no news of the whereabouts of Mr. Sidi Brahim”?….

It is a shame that a so-called progressive government behaves in such an unpresentable way, so lacking in the most elementary standards of respect for its administrations, that it borders on discourtesy, responding in an undocumented, mendacious and indolent manner. Citizens deserve, and even demand, to be informed in a responsible, truthful and cleaner way, and not as in this case.

Through behaviors such as the one we analyze, it is suggested in this, your, Answer, that this will be your “official position” (do not forget that it is a question to the Government, in which the Government exposes its official point of view on the subject ).

If you do not rectify the point of view expressed in your Answer, we will have reasons to feel the shame of being administered by such a government; And, the worst thing is that this attitude favors an increase in the penalties of a people of which we are the administrators, and on which we assume the commitment to finish the decolonization process …

We firmly ask:

– As citizens of a Social and Democratic State of Law (which must fulfill its commitments to the formerly called Spanish Sahara),
– and as members of the solidarity movement with the Saharawi people,
– as defenders of Human Rights,
– as citizens who love compliance with international law,

that the subject be taken up again, the answer be rectified and that we assume our historical responsibility.

Document signed by: