A New Legal Question for Strasbourg: The Case of Vallejo v. Spain

by Sònia Olivella (Irídia, Centre per la Defensa dels Drets Humans) and Gabriela Echeverria Gutierrez (lawyer)

More than a hundred survivors of torture during the late Francoist dictatorship have signed a letter to international bodies calling for justice and reparation for the atrocities they suffered—an appeal supported by over 6,000 individuals and 140 civil society organisations (justiciaantifranquista.org). Their collective demand, after decades of impunity, gained new significance when Law 20/2022 on Democratic Memory entered into force in October 2022. For the first time, Spain formally recognised that crimes committed during the Civil War and the dictatorship may constitute crimes against humanity, and that such crimes, including torture, are not subject to amnesty or prescription.

It is under this new framework that trade-unionist and human rights defender José Carlos Vallejo brought his case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in September 2025. The application, prepared by Irídia’s legal team with Dr Gabriela Echeverria as co-counsel, concerns Spain’s failure to conduct a proper investigation into the torture Vallejo suffered in 1970–71.

Failure to Investigate

Vallejo’s complaint was the first criminal case under the Democratic Memory Act. He identified six police officers allegedly responsible for his torture. The specialised Attorney General’s Office for Human Rights and Democratic Memory supported opening an investigation, emphasising that courts must first determine whether the alleged acts could qualify as crimes against humanity before applying procedural bars such as limitation periods or amnesties.

Nevertheless, the Investigating Court and the Barcelona Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint outright. Without a factual investigation to clarify the nature of the alleged crime, both courts held that the offences were time-barred and that classifying them as crimes against humanity would breach the principle of legality. The Constitutional Court later declined to admit Vallejo’s final appeal.

A New Legal Question

Vallejo’s application to the ECtHR does not rely on a continuing obligation to investigate Franco-era crimes. Instead, it challenges the courts’ current failure to conduct an effective investigation under Spain’s new remedy, breaching Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Dismissing the case without a preliminary investigation to determine whether the alleged torture constituted a crime against humanity is in direct contradiction to the Court’s established case-law.

The application further argues that the ECtHR can and must extend its jurisdiction ratione temporis under the “genuine connection” and/or “Convention values” tests developed in Šilih v. Slovenia and Janowiec and Others v. Russia. The torture occurred less than a decade before Spain’s ratification of the Convention and formed part of a systematic and widespread political repression—circumstances that justify the Court’s exceptional jurisdiction.

Why It Matters

For Vallejo and hundreds of survivors, the absence of justice remains a living wound. As Spain marks fifty years since the death of Franco, this case could become a turning point—an opportunity to end half a century of impunity finally and affirm that democracy requires justice grounded in law and respect for human dignity.

This article was first published in the Community Corner of our Just Reparation newsletter. These contributions are invaluable in enriching our collective understanding and fostering meaningful dialogue within the reparation community of practice. If you would like to be featured, we encourage you to submit your contributions to [email protected].