A Truth Commission is Established in Spain: An Important Step Towards Filling the Truth and Reconciliation Gap after the Civil War and the Franco Dictatorship

[Anna Maria Puigderrajols Triadó is a PhD candidate at the Europa Institute of Leiden University, where she previously completed the Advanced LL.M. in European and International Human Rights Law.]

On Wednesday 26 March 2026, two days after the International Day for the Right to Truth, and more than fifty years since the fall of the Franco Regime, Spain has finally created the Truth Commission (‘Comisión de la Verdad’) as the body tasked with establishing and untangling the human rights (HR) violations perpetrated during the Civil War and the Franco Dictatorship.  

A Bumpy Road: Decades of Non-compliance with International Standards

The process toward truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition in Spain has been complex and politicised. Two tendencies that generally characterize post-authoritarian and post-conflict transitions (A/HRC/27/56/Add.1, para. 8), with the difference that, in Spain, more than 50 years have elapsed since the fall of the Franco regime. 

In 2014, in light of the lack of a state policy to seek the truth, the UN Special Rapporteur for the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence,  invited Spain to seriously consider the establishment of an independent official mechanism to achieve an exhaustive understanding of the HR and humanitarian law (IHL) violations during the Civil War and the Franco Era (A/HRC/27/56/Add.1, para. 47). The Working Group on Enforced Disappearances or Involuntary Disappearances regretted the opposition toward the creation of a truth commission (CED/C/ESP/CO/1, para. 41).

This has been aggravated by the impossibility of victims to access to justice in individual complaints brought before Spanish courts (A/HRC/27/56/Add.1, para. 68). Practically all cases brought before Spanish justice did not lead to the opening of an investigation (A/HRC/27/56/Add.1, para. 76). Even more, it led to the prosecution of a judge who deemed the 1977 Amnesty Law not applicable to crimes against humanity (CAH) (see here). Back in 2012 the Spanish Supreme Court in the 101/2012 judgement found that crimes committed during the Dictatorship could not be prosecuted in light of the Amnesty Law, their prescription and the principle of legality.

In October 2022 a new avenue for accountability seemed to open when the Ley de Memoria Democrática (Law 20/2022 of 19 October 2022) entered into force. In Article 29 the Law enshrines a right of victims to an investigation and Article 2(3) provides that the Amnesty Law is to be interpreted in light of international law under which war crimes, CAH and genocide cannot be subjected to amnesties. Despite the legislative developments, prosecution remained foreclosed. Spanish courts have reiterated the approach of 2012 when faced with new cases brought in light of the 2022 Law. In 2024, the Constitutional Court provided that Law 20/2022 did not replace the Court’s interpretation of fundamental rights and cannot allow for international law to become a direct source for Spanish criminal law, declaring an application. concerning CAH and torture during the Franco Dictatorship, inadmissible (57/2024 decision). 

This accountability gap has extended to the international level, where victims have seen their cases declared inadmissible due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction (see before the European Court of Human Rights Gutierrez Dorado and Dorado v Spain; see before the CCPR MJV and AAM v Spain, or FEC v Spain). 

Safeguarding the Truth Commission’s Success

Considering the failure of the conventional legal pathways to pursue accountability for the crimes committed during the Civil War and Dictatorship, the Truth Commission has the potential to fill a vast accountability gap. However, its success should not be taken for granted. 

The UN Special Rapporteur, compiling practices from earlier truth commissions, has tied the success of these bodies to several elements including: the moral standing of the members, the moment in which they are constituted , the closeness of the topics addressed and fundamental rights, the consistency and soundness of the methodology, the openness to civil society, and the adoption of a victim-centred and inclusive approach (A/HRC/24/42, para. 23).

Legal Basis: Independence and Scope of the Mandate

In December 2025, the Spanish Government established the Consejo de Memória Democrática (Memory Council) under Article 57 of Law 20/2022. This is a collegiate and consultative body integrated by representatives of the administration, civil society organizations and experts in the field. 

The Commission is attached to the Council, which, in turn, is linked to the Ministry of territorial policy and democratic memory. It is precisely the same Article 57(5) of Law 20/2022, together with Article 8 of the  Royal Decree 265/2025 of 8 April 2025, that provide the legal basis for the establishment of the Commission. 

Such a configuration could cast some doubt as to the independence of the Commission. However, Article 8(2) RD 265/2025 is clear on the independent character of the members as well as their reputed academic background. Such independence is also protected through Article 8(1) RD 265/2025, which provides that all the Commission’s conclusions and recommendations must be objective and impartial and based on the information and testimonies that it compiles. The fact that the Commission itself will draft its functioning rules and methodology constitutes a further safeguard against political interference (Article 8(3) RD 265/2025).

Another point pertains to the mandate. The Commission has the mandate to contribute to the establishment (‘esclarecimiento’) of human rights violations during the Civil War and the Dictatorship, with the goal to promote democratic coexistence (‘convivencia democrática’). Available information indicates some thematic areas that the Commission will cover revealing the willingness to incorporate a myriad of practices that unfolded during the relevant period and closely tied to HR considerations. The specific mention of cultural repression is especially important and should include the linguistic repression that unfolded in regions like Catalunya, Galicia or Euskal Herria (País Basco) during the Dictatorship. The area of current consequences of the dictatorship is quite broad and will give the Commission space to define its own focus. However, its members should be wary as it can open the door to critiques of politization if addressing contemporary issues or rights violations. 

The Commission will also have to face the challenge of bringing together extensive, dispersed and non-systematised amounts of already existing information, while compiling new evidence, guaranteeing inclusive participation and accessibility, and publishing it all in a report after 18 months since its establishment (Article 8(4) Royal Decree 265/2025). In this regard, it is important to manage expectations on the capacity to undertake such a fundamental but challenging task, especially considering the time limits of the mandate.

Moment of Constitution 

Truth Commissions are normally constituted in moments of upheaval and soon after the end of the concrete conflict when the basic social contract guiding a post-conflict society is being revised. The Truth Commission in Colombia is an example in this regard. Its creation was enshrined in the same agreement that declared the end of the conflict between Colombia and the FARC on 4 April 2017 and established the next day through the adoption of the 588 Decree.

This is far from the context in Spain in which the Truth Commission arrives 50 years after the fall of the Franco regime. Some argue that this will only reopen wounds from the past, while others proclaim it is a matter of justice considering the frustrated litigation efforts. 

The fact that the Commission is established so many years after the fall of the regime does not render it irrelevant. It simply will have another task as reflected in its mandate. Namely, establishing the HR violations during the relevant period, which in turn will contribute to the protection of the right to truth (see HR Council Resolutions 12/12, para. 1, and 9/11, para. 1) of the victims and the next of kin and the Spanish society as a whole (IACtHR, Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, para. 274).

Moral Character of the Members

The above is only possible if the Commission is perceived by the Spanish society as a legitimate body to undertake the task. The profiles of the members reveal very strong multidisciplinary professional and academic backgrounds. The Commission comprises a total of 20 experts: ten members and ten substitutes (‘suplentes’), representing multiple disciplines. As a way of illustration, members include an experienced practicing international HR lawyer and professor of HR Law and IHL (professor Helen Duffy); historians (professors Francisco Erice Sebares or Julián Casanova Ruiz), political scientists (associate professor Cristina Monge Lasierra), Criminal Law professors (professor Araceli Manjón-Cabeza Olmedo), and the head of the renowned Civil Society Organization: Redress (Alejandra Vicente). The substitutes include, among others, forensic anthropologists (Luis Bernardo Fondebrider), a former judge of the Inter-American Court on HR (Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas), and members of civil society organizations (Jaime Ruiz Reig). This composition already reveals the potential for a necessary multidisciplinary approach and holistic understanding of the myriad of rights violations.

As for the presidency, Judge Garzón led Spain’s engagement in universal jurisdiction proceedings such as the Pinochet case as well as the initial efforts to prosecute crimes committed during the Dictatorship. Nevertheless, the latter together with his work in the investigation of a corruption scandal around Partido Popular in Spain (Gürtel case), led to his prosecution before Spanish courts. Against that, the United Nations HR (CCPR) condemned Spain for his arbitrary dismissal and prosecution (CCPR/C/132/D/2844/2016). Despite the Committee’s decision, Spain still refuses to provide reparations or any meaningful response. Precisely, in light of these procedures against the judge and failure to redress the situation, he is still perceived by some sectors of the Spanish society, at least, as a controversial figure, doing a scarce favour to the perception of the Commission within these sectors. 

Nevertheless, the challenge is deeper than that. Regardless of who presides it, the Commission will have to navigate the polarised social climate in Spain more than 50 years after the fall of the regime, and attempt to reach sectors of the population that still reject reconciliation efforts under the pretext of the so-called ‘Silence Pact’ (‘Pacto del Silencio’) that characterised the Spanish Transition.

A Sub-Commission Concerning the Patronato de Protección de la Mujer

Beyond the general mandate, the Commission will have a specific sub-commission for the investigation of the HR violations suffered by victims of the Patronato de Protección de la Mujer. This is to be welcomed as it puts an end to decades of lack of accountability and recognition of the HR violations that women endured there.

The Patronato, was created in 1941 with the mandate to ‘morally dignify women’ and with a strong catholic component. Thousands of women were confined there -without any justification or legal basis- and tortured. The ominous practices women endured included virginity tests, vexations, being put in isolation cells without being able to stand, subjection to electroshock if they were attracted to people of the same sex or being coerced and forced to give their children up for adoption. The latter practice extended beyond that institution and has generated decades of struggles for families to find the ‘stolen babies’ in Spain. 

The establishment of the sub-commission provides an opportunity to systematise, compile, document their testimonies and establish the HR violations they endured. Moreover, it contributes to overcoming “gender blindness” that prevailed in earlier truth commissions (A/HRC/24/42, para. 36). However, this should not lead to ignoring gender considerations when establishing the rights violations committed during the relevant period within the general mandate of the Truth Commission. 

Conclusion

Only time will tell the impact that the Truth Commission will have and the transformations it will trigger. 

The long delay, combined with the turbulent political climate Spain is currently experiencing, may create additional obstacles in the already bumpy road toward the establishment of the HR violations that took place during the Civil War and the Franco Dictatorship. Moreover, its members will have to define a methodology that preserves their independence and pursues a victim-centered and holistic approach if they want to guarantee the success of this body. However, and above all, in these initial stages there is no doubt that it constitutes a positive step toward truth, justice and reconciliation. 

Photo attribution: Photo by Carlos Zurita on Unsplash