Teresa Freixes
HUNGER STRIKE AND COLLISION OF RIGHTS
When reason is lost, all
legitimacy in the action is lost. Here and now we decide, for example, to start
a hunger strike of solids.
I guess we know that there are
precedents and constitutional jurisprudence in the matter, also several ETA,
Grapos and some loose verse to start the hunger strike while they are in
prison.
According to Spanish law and
jurisprudence, international standards are not verified as human rights. At the
time they lose consciousness, the prosecutor will request forced feeding so
that death does not occur. The criterion of what was done in the United Kingdom
with the prisoners of the IRA does not apply here, where several died who
refused to be fed, until the mothers request the medical intervention so as not
to let them die.
Legally, the issue is posed as
the collision of rights: the right of a person to declare a hunger strike to
death and the right of the authority to watch over the lives of those under
special subjection. While a person is conscious he can see, indeed, he has a
decision of his own to exercise his right. As for the conscience, its will is
no longer verifiable, and is substituted by the one who has to ensure its
existence.
THE SUPPOSED "BLOCKING" OF THE TC (CONSTITUCIONAL COURT) AND THE "REASONABLE TERM"
The politicians who are under preventive detention argue that their cause is being delayed in the constitutional redresses they have presented before the Constitutional Court because in this way, when accepted for processing, they can not go to the European Court of Human Rights.This is totally false. If they believe that the TC incurs in undue delays they have expedited the appeal before the ECHR for violation of the right to a resolution issued within a reasonable period, recognized by art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They have only to review proceedings without greater requirements.
The ECHR, to consider if a case exceeds, in its processing, from its beginning until the moment in which the claim is filed, what can be considered as "reasonable term" has built a scrutiny or "test" in which it analyzes :
1.- The complexity of the case, because not all cases are the same.
2.- The attitude of the defendants, checking if they collaborate with the justice or file claims or use delaying claims.
3 .- The attitude of the judge of the case, to see if issues accumulate or he solves them with due diligence.
4. The attitude of judicial authorities (General Council of the Judiciary in the case of Spain or Ministry of Justice when it depends on the latter) to check whether they organize the delivery of justice by granting judges and courts the necessary means.
From there, judge yourselves.
Just read the press with certain regularity.
