Requiem for Universal Jurisdiction in Spain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two relevant legislative reforms that universal jurisdiction was subjected to have been a serious blow to the fight against impunity in Spain. The reasons for this de facto repeal of universal justice can only be explained by political interference of foreign governments whose citizens were cornered by Spanish justice. However, with regard to the 2014 reform, there was the possibility that the Constitutional Court might declare that the reform violated some articles of the Spanish Constitution. This last hope evaporated when this court recently rejected the appeals. First, the ruling on 20 December 2018 rejected the Socialist MPs’ arguments. Then, with this precedent, in 2019 the vast majority of cases pursuing international crimes – Tibet, Falun Gong, Rwanda, Guantanamo, the Ashraf refugee camp in Iraq, Couso – were definitively closed. After having exhausted all Spain’s internal options, now the different appeals before the European Court of Human Rights are being rejected. Meanwhile, universal jurisdiction has only survived in the Spanish courts if it involves pursuing a few cases of terrorism, leaving those who were being investigated for war crimes and genocide to go scot-free.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it