CCPR/C/130/D/3599/2019 4.591/10 before National Criminal and Correctional Court No. 1 of Buenos Aires. By means of an international letter rogatory issued on 14 October 2010, the Argentine court requested the Spanish State to indicate whether any investigation was being carried out into a systematic plan to eliminate political opponents during the Civil War and the dictatorship. On 6 May 2011, the Office of the Attorney General of the Spanish State reported that numerous judicial proceedings were under way in relation to the facts addressed in the letter rogatory. On 13 December 2011, a second letter rogatory was issued in which the Spanish State was asked to report on the number of disappeared persons. On 27 March 2012, without mentioning the Supreme Court’s ruling of 27 February 2012, which led to the dismissal of a number of cases in progress in the country, the Spanish State replied that Argentina did not have jurisdiction to investigate the facts. 2.19 On 18 September 2013, as the authors were already complainants before the Argentine court, the Argentine justice system issued an order for the extradition of Juan Antonio González Pacheco (“Billy el Niño”), José Ignacio Giralte González, Celso Galván Abascal and Jesús Muñecas Aguilar for crimes against humanity. In April 2014, the Office of the Attorney General of the Spanish State objected, citing the lack of description of the events mentioned in the extradition order and the fact that these events were subject to an amnesty and a statute of limitations. On 30 October 2014, the Argentine justice system, acting through INTERPOL, issued a request for the arrest of 19 persons under investigation. Once again, Spain refused. Finally, on 30 September 2016, the Office of the Attorney General shut down all possibility of cooperation with the Argentine proceedings, instructing the prosecutors to oppose any action requested by the Argentine justice system on the grounds that the events fall within the jurisdiction of Spain and are clearly time-barred and subject to amnesty, meaning that to comply with the Argentine requests for judicial assistance would constitute a serious breach of Spanish law. 2.20 Following the opening of a grave in Porreras, a village situated 20 kilometres from Manacor, in November 2016, the authors submitted a new complaint, this time to Manacor Court of Investigation No. 1. On 3 August 2017, the complaint was dismissed on the basis of the arguments set out in the Supreme Court’s ruling. 2.21 In accordance with the Historical Memory Act and autonomous community Act No. 10/2016 on the recovery of persons who disappeared during the Civil War and the Franco regime, which provided for the establishment of the Technical Commission on Disappeared Persons and Graves, the authors have also pursued various administrative courses of actions in an attempt to find the mortal remains of their relatives and obtain reparation. 2.22 In particular, the authors have requested that they be recognized as victims under the Historical Memory Act. This recognition, which is merely symbolic,7 has been granted. 2.23 On 10 April 2018, the authors submitted a written request for the recovery of the remains of their family members to the Technical Commission on Disappeared Persons and Graves of the Government of the Balearic Islands. The response mentioned the need to study the feasibility of conducting exhumations. No action to open the graves has yet been taken. 2.24 Lastly, on 14 May 2018, the authors submitted an application for medical and pharmaceutical assistance, social assistance and a family pension to the Ministry of Finance. The response was negative. Previously, F.A.J. had failed to obtain an orphan’s pension of the kind established in 1940 because she was not legally an orphan; nor was she able to receive a special pension of the kind established in 1979 because she was married and the law benefited only unmarried daughters and widows. The complaint 3.1 Firstly, the authors maintain that the communication is admissible ratione temporis since the events constitute continuous and ongoing violations. 8 They point out that Ms. J.V. 7 8 GE.21-06035 As it falls far short of international standards on justice, truth and reparation. The authors refer, inter alia, to the case of Sankara et al. v. Burkina Faso (CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003), para. 6.3, in which the Committee held that a “continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation, after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, by act or by clear implication, of previous violations by the State party”. 5