ECtHR – Decision of 27.03.2012, Antonio Gutiérrez Dorado and Carmen Dorado Ortiz v. Spain, 301410/09 – <<Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 ECHR – Enforced disappearances during the Spanish Civil War>> – Unforeseen lack of jurisdiction concerning the autonomous,

Authors

  • Javier Chinchón Álvarez

Keywords:

nforced disappearance, article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, obligation to investigate, temporal jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, case Silih v. Slovakia (GC), case Varnava an

Abstract

This article examines the key decision of 27 April 2012 issued by the European Court of Human Rights rejecting for the first time a case involving an enforced disappearance that began in 1936 in the context of the Spanish Civil War: the case Antonio Gutiérrez Dorado and Carmen Dorado Ortiz v. Spain.In this case, the Court confirmed not only the general applicability of the self-imposed limitations on the exercise of its jurisdiction (case of Silih v. Slovakia (GC) and Varnava and others v. Turkey (GC)but also the immediate and automatic application of such doctrine, which is all the more objectionable. As a consequence, the procedural obligation to investigate under article 2, correctly defined as an independent, autonomous and continuing obligation, at the substantive level will finally be dispossessed of its true meaning and consequences. Unlike previous as well as subsequent cases, the same reasoning was extended to the remainder of the alleged violations in issue, namely, article 3, thus resulting in the rejection of the application.

Issue

Section

CASE LAW EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS