Acceso usuarios
The present commentary analyses the Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court of 17 July 2018. This judgment given by its Contentious-Administrative Chamber is thoroughly considered along the commentary, explaining the factual and procedural background of Ángela González’s claim consisting of the request of a compensation for the dramatic murder of her daughter by her ex-partner in a gender-violence context. Accordingly, after the exhaustion of local remedies, the appellant cleverly brought her claim before the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which adopted a decision recommending Spain to indemnify her for the damages suffered. Subsequently, on the basis of this favorable decision, the appellant sought a compensation for the State liability due to an abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice, whose denial was appealed before the Supreme Court. Finally, the Supreme Court considered the CEDAW’s decision as a “valid premise” to file a request of State liability and notably declared such decision as “legally binding/obligatory” for Spain, although the CEDAW’s decisions have not that nature according to its Convention and Optional Protocol. As a result, the Supreme Court adjudged an economic reparation for the claimant and affirmed that Spain breached its international obligations. In brief, the commentary concludes with some reflections on the future implications that this arguable judgment of the Supreme Court may entail in relation to the international obligations of the State and the domestic enforcement of the decisions adopted by the CEDAW and by other UN treaty bodies analogously.
