The decision of the UN Human Rights Committee which concludes that Spain violated the political rights of former members of the Catalan government and parliament by suspending them from public functions, without them having been convicted by the courts after the referendum of the October 1st, is an important victory in terms of explaining to the world the authoritarian and undemocratic behaviour of a state that is too accustomed to dispensing with legality. The four plaintiffs, Oriol Junqueras, Jordi Turull, Josep Rull and Raül Romeva, should feel satisfied, because - even if the UN ruling does not reverse that irregularity - it demonstrates the extent to which the repression of the independence movement has been of great cruelty and that all kinds of atrocities were perpetrated under the umbrella of safeguarding the unity of Spain.
The UN resolution not only casts Spanish courts from the Supreme to the Constitutional in a poor light, but also, by extension the rebuke arrives at the pro-constitutionalist parties and the two Spanish governments that have existed since 2017, that of the People's Party led by Mariano Rajoy and that of the PSOE led by Pedro Sánchez and Pablo Iglesias (now Yolanda Díaz). In the case of Socialists, PP, Vox and Ciudadanos, who are the guarantors of the regime of '78, the admonition must surely matter very little to them. But no other attitude can be expected from those who empowered the entire doctrine that a coup d'état was being hatched in Catalonia simply because they did not have the tools to stop a democratic consultation process like that of the independence referendum of October 1st.
The reprimand also includes the media: Spanish media, along with the printed press with the highest circulation in Catalonia. These outlets uncritically bought into an argument that already suited them, because it was that of the state, they abandoned the function of reporting and placed themselves on the most powerful side because it solved more than one accounting problem. Time tends to blur things and politicians are often short of memory, but the newspaper library is there for anyone who wants to take the time to analyze it. There is little expectation of a sincere act of contrition, and instead they tend to tiptoe around a topic that is hugely uncomfortable for them.
It remains striking that every time there is an international pronouncement of any kind in relation to the court actions following the Catalan referendum and independence declaration, it is always a blow that holds up the shames of Spain to the world. What is incredible, and inexplicable, is that there is no sign of a debate being opened about where this places the judges involved and what it means about the repression unleashed through the application of Article 155. When the Spanish government says that the situation in Catalonia has already returned to normal and there tends to be general assent, it would be good if they contrasted the disproportionate statements with pronouncements like that of the United Nations. The only normalization comes through this kind of international resolution, not that of empty, so-called dialogue tables which devote themselves to talking about the weather more than giving content to their purpose: an amnesty and an agreed referendum.
A final reflection: the pronouncement by the UN Human Rights Committee took place on the eve of the meeting of the Catalan Parliament's Bureau to reconsider the suspension of speaker Laura Borràs that was enacted after she was sent to trial in application of article 25.4 of the parliamentary regulations. A debate is thus opened on whether the UN decision should be taken into account, and the suspension delayed until there is a final verdict by the TSJC, a moment which is a long way off because the trial has not started. The PSC, ERC and the CUP have given no signs of wanting to modify the initial position, and the messages after learning the position of the UN has not changed, because they understand that, as a decision of the Bureau it is not the same as if it had been taken by the courts. It is a debatable and, in part, unwise position because, for example, the Constitutional Court in the future could see it differently.