PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 56673/00) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Spanish nationals, Mrs María Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. (“the applicants”), on 22 December 1999.

The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr J. Thomas Mulet, of the Palma de Mallorca Bar. The Spanish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Borrego Borrego, Head of the Legal Department for Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice.

The first applicant, acting in her own name and in her capacity as the legal representative of her son (the second applicant), complained under Article 8 of the Convention of a lack of diligence on the part of the judicial authorities in dealing with her complaint of child abduction. She alleged, in particular, that the public prosecutor, who was under a legal duty to protect minors, had at no stage acted in the child’s interest or requested any investigative steps to be taken. The various judicial authorities to which the case was referred (the investigating judge, the Pontevedra Audiencia Provincial and the Constitutional Court) had likewise displayed a lack of interest.

The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section.

By a decision of 5 March 2002 the Chamber declared the application admissible.

The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 10 December 2002 (Rule 59 § 3). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr J. Borrego Borrego, Head of the Legal Department for Human Rights, Ministry of Justice, Agent; (b) for the applicants Mr J. Thomas Mulet, of the Palma de Mallorca Bar, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by the above-mentioned representatives.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The first applicant, María Iglesias Gil, was born in 1961 and lives in Vigo. She is the mother of the second applicant, A.U.I., who was born in 1995.

On 8 September 1989 the first applicant married A.U.A. On 3 June 1994 the couple divorced. Their son A.U.I. was born on 7 December 1995 and A.U.A. acknowledged paternity. In a decision of 20 December 1996, the Vigo Family Court awarded the first applicant custody of A.U.I., and the father access. On 1 February 1997 A.U.A. abducted his son during an access visit and left Spain with him. After passing through France and Belgium, he travelled with the child by air to the United States.

A. Domestic court proceedings

1. The first applicant’s criminal complaint of unlawful abduction

The first applicant lodged a criminal complaint with Vigo investigating judge no. 5 alleging child abduction and applied to be joined to the proceedings as a civil party. On 4 February 1997 the investigating judge made orders for a nationwide search to be made for A.U.A. and for the child’s immediate return to its mother. Subsequently, the first applicant also made criminal complaints against various members of A.U.A.’s family who, she said, had assisted in her son’s abduction.

During the investigation, the first applicant requested Vigo investigating judge no. 5 to monitor calls on A.U.A.’s mobile telephone and to interview members of A.U.A.’s family. In a decision of 19 February 1997, the investigating judge turned down both requests, the former on the ground that there was no evidence that the mobile telephone number that had been given was A.U.A.’s and the latter because the first applicant had not given precise details of the questions she wished to be put to her former husband’s relatives. The first applicant also asked the investigating judge for a search to be carried out at the registered office of a company belonging to A.U.A. that was responsible for administering his property in his absence, and for the examination of a vehicle he had used to leave Spain. The judge again refused.

The first applicant asked the judge to issue an international search and arrest warrant against A.U.A., but in an order of 29 May 1997, he declined, stating: “...

As regards the international search and arrest warrant, the offences of coercion and extortion have not been made out. It is debatable whether there has been an offence of criminal contempt, since it has not been proved that the person concerned was ordered to comply with the judgment of the family court and warned that he was liable to commit this offence. In addition, since this offence (Article 556 of the Criminal Code) only carries a prison sentence of between six months and one year, an international search and arrest warrant is not justified, [especially] as the conduct complained of appears to come within Article 622 of the Criminal Code, which characterises it as a minor offence. ...

Furthermore, it should be noted that the requested procedural steps are neither lawful, nor adapted to the aim pursued, and must therefore be refused pursuant to Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

In a decision of 5 June 1997, investigating judge no. 5 turned down further requests by the first applicant for investigative steps to be taken as a result of her former husband’s contempt and failure to comply with the judgment of the family court on the following grounds: “...

Investigative steps are taken in order to establish whether an offence has been committed. The investigation is brought to an end by a judicial decision, not at the request of a party (Article 785 Code of Criminal Procedure).

The inquiries made to date do not prove that A.U.A. failed to return his son to his mother at the end of the period for which he was entitled to have him to stay. ...

A wanted notice has been issued for A.U.A. nationally. As soon as he has been traced, final provision 19 of Institutional Law no. 1/1996 of 15 January 1996 on the legal protection of minors can be applied.”

In an order of 25 May 1998, the investigating judge also examined whether a person could be prosecuted for the abduction of a minor for whom he had joint parental responsibility. He found that this was not possible under the case-law, as the only offences that could be committed in such circumstances were criminal contempt and extortion. In a further order dated 1 July 1998 the investigating judge reiterated that no international search and arrest warrant could be issued for the suspected offence of criminal contempt, for the following reasons: “... As regards an international search and arrest warrant against A.U.A., this issue was resolved by the Pontevedra Audiencia in its decision of 23 September 1997. No new facts have emerged since then that would justify reclassifying the offence. Under no circumstances can it amount to ‘false imprisonment’, as the judgment of 5 July 1993 on the abduction of minors makes clear. In that judgment, the court held: ‘The fact that a father has taken his minor child with him solely in order to enjoy its company cannot amount to the offence of child abduction’ ... Lastly, as to the suspected offence of criminal contempt, no international search and arrest warrant can be issued as it is not an offence that comes within the extradition treaties. Consequently, Interpol would not act on such a warrant, as it would not be valid in law.”

An appeal by the first applicant was dismissed by the Pontevedra Audiencia Provincial on 17 November 1998.

2. The first applicant’s first amparo appeal

The first applicant sought amparo relief under Articles 24 (right to a fair hearing), 15 (right to life and mental and physical integrity) and 17 (right to liberty and security) of the Constitution, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989. In a decision of 2 June 1999, the Constitutional Court dismissed her appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that she had not stated why she disagreed with the reasoned decisions of the lower courts.

Provisional discharge order by investigating judge no. 5

At the end of the investigation, on 3 July 1998, Vigo investigating judge no. 5 issued a provisional discharge order dismissing the charges against A.U.A. However, he renewed the orders for a nationwide search for A.U.A. and the order freezing his assets. He also made a final order dismissing the charges against the members of A.U.A.’s family who had been implicated by the first applicant. The reason given by the judge for making the provisional discharge order in respect of A.U.A. was that the latter’s absence from Spain had prevented his being questioned or formally charged in accordance with Article 791 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal by the first applicant was dismissed by the Pontevedra Audiencia Provincial on 9 November 1998.

4. The first applicant’s second amparo appeal

The first applicant lodged an amparo appeal against those decisions with the Constitutional Court, in which she alleged violations of Article 17 (right to liberty and security), taken together with Articles 18 (rights to private life and family privacy), 24 (right to a fair hearing) and 39 (social, economic and legal protection of the family and children) of the Constitution. She also relied on Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention. In her appeal, she complained in particular of the investigating judge’s systematic refusal to issue an international search warrant for her child, a refusal which, she said, was in breach of the positive duty to protect children and families. She also alleged a violation of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, which requires States to take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad. In her submission, by refusing to take any investigative steps, the investigating judge had directly infringed both her and her son’s right to private and family life, and her right to judicial protection, as guaranteed by Article 24 the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention.

In a decision of 17 June 1999, the Constitutional Court dismissed the amparo appeal as unfounded, holding that the first applicant had confined herself to contesting the decisions of the criminal courts which, in reasoned and well-founded decisions, had decided to make a provisional discharge order in respect of her criminal complaint of child abduction, while renewing certain preventive measures.

5. Other decisions in the criminal proceedings

In connection with an appeal by the first applicant to the Pontevedra Audiencia Provincial against one of his decisions, investigating judge no. 5 said in a report to the Audiencia Provincial on 5 September 1997: “... The purpose of criminal proceedings is to prosecute the offence and, if appropriate, to punish the perpetrators. However, an investigating judge cannot, under any circumstances, allow himself to be manipulated by a woman driven by jealousy or hatred against her former husband’s family and take a series of procedural measures that serve no purpose other than to inconvenience third parties uninvolved in the proceedings. In the present case, all that has been proved so far is that A.U.A. did not return his son A.U.I. to his mother at the end of the period he was allowed by the family court.”

An application for an order requiring investigating judge no. 5 to stand down was dismissed in a decision of 20 November 1997. In a decision of 22 February 1999, an application for the proceedings to be declared null and void was likewise dismissed.

6. Award of full parental responsibility to the first applicant

In a judgment of 12 February 1999, the Vigo Family Court withdrew parental responsibility from A.U.A. and awarded the first applicant full parental responsibility. It gave the following reasons for its decision: “... Having considered the evidence, the Court has decided to grant the applicant’s application. ... the case file shows that, after continually failing to comply with the access arrangements (see this Court’s decision of 20 December 1996), the respondent did not return the child to its mother at the end of the period stipulated in the decision of 20 December 1996. Furthermore, since 1 February 1997, the whereabouts of both father and child have been unknown, which means that the child has been removed from the applicant’s custody in breach of a court order. Such conduct can only be described as very serious, as it has entailed the cruel and abrupt removal of the child from the family background in which it was being happily brought up, thereby depriving it both now and then of its mother’s love and protection ... at the most tender of ages, with the serious harm which that entails ... Thus, by putting his own interests before those of his child, [A.U.A.] has acted in a manner that is seriously detrimental to the child’s welfare ...”

Renewal of contact between the first applicant and her son, the return of the child and further criminal complaints

According to a psychologist’s report produced by the first applicant in April 2000, A.U.A. first made contact with her through a telephone call in which he imposed various conditions for the child’s return, threatened her and used the prospect of her not seeing her son again as blackmail. On 12 June 2000 the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against A.U.A. alleging threatening behaviour and coercion. On 30 September 2000 Vigo investigating judge no. 6 made a provisional discharge order. On an appeal by the first applicant, that order was quashed by the Pontevedra Audiencia Provincial in a decision of 15 May 2001.

On 18 April 2000 the first applicant saw her son for the first time since his abduction in February 1997. On 12 May 2000 A.U.A. voluntarily appeared before the investigating judge, who, after hearing his representations, decided not to order his detention pending trial. Finally, on 18 June 2000 the first applicant was able to recover her child with police assistance on A.U.A.’s return to Vigo with the child. She said that for a time she was forced to go into hiding with her son in a shelter for women.

On 14 July 2000 the Family Court granted A.U.A. access. As he was prevented from exercising that right, A.U.A. lodged a criminal complaint with the Vigo investigating judge against the first applicant and her parents alleging aggravated contempt.

II. RELEVANT LAW AND PRACTICE

A. The Constitution

The relevant provisions of the Constitution read as follows: Article 10 § 2 “Provisions relating to the fundamental rights and the freedoms recognised by the Constitution shall be construed in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties and agreements on human rights that have been ratified by Spain.” Article 18 “1. Everyone’s right to honour and to private and family life ... shall be protected. ...” Article 24 “1. Everyone shall have the right to effective protection by the judges and courts in the exercise of his or her rights and legitimate interests; in no circumstances may there be any denial of defence rights. ...” Article 39 § 4 “Children shall enjoy the protection provided for in the international agreements safeguarding their rights.” Article 96 § 1 “Once officially published in Spain, international treaties that have been validly concluded shall be part of the domestic legal order. ...”

B. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989

The relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child [Spain ratified this instrument on 6 December 1990. The United States signed it on 16 February 1995, but have not yet ratified it] provide as follows: Article 11 “1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.

To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.”

C. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980

The relevant provisions of this convention [Spain ratified this instrument on 16 June 1987 and the United States on 29 April 1988] provide as follows: Article 1 “The objects of the present Convention are: (a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and (b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.” Article 2 “Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention. For this purpose they shall use the most expeditious procedures available.” Article 3 “The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where: (a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and (b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.” Article 6 “A Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are imposed by the Convention upon such authorities. ...” Article 7 “Central Authorities shall cooperate with each other and promote cooperation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention. In particular, either directly or through any intermediary, they shall take all appropriate measures: (a) to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained; (b) to prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties by taking or causing to be taken provisional measures; (c) to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues; (d) to exchange, where desirable, information relating to the social background of the child; (e) to provide information of a general character as to the law of their State in connection with the application of the Convention; (f) to initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access; (g) where the circumstances so require, to provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers; (h) to provide such administrative arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to secure the safe return of the child; (i) to keep each other informed with respect to the operation of this Convention and, as far as possible, to eliminate any obstacles to its application.” Article 8 “Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child’s habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child. ...” Article 11 “The judicial or administrative authorities of Contracting States shall act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children. If the judicial or administrative authority concerned has not reached a decision within six weeks from the date of commencement of the proceedings, the applicant or the Central Authority of the requested State, on its own initiative or if asked by the Central Authority of the requesting State, shall have the right to request a statement of the reasons for the delay. ...” Article 12 “Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith. The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment. Where the judicial or administrative authority in the requested State has reason to believe that the child has been taken to another State, it may stay the proceedings or dismiss the application for the return of the child.” Article 13 “Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that: (a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or (b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views. In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child’s habitual residence.”

D. Institutional Law no. 1/1996 of 15 January 1996 on the legal protection of minors, amending the Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure (published in the Official Gazette of 17 January 1996)

The relevant provisions of this Law provide: Section 3 “Minors shall enjoy the rights afforded them by the Constitution and international treaties ratified by Spain, in particular, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the other rights guaranteed by domestic legislation ... This law, its implementing provisions and other statutory provisions concerning minors shall be construed in accordance with the international treaties ratified by Spain and, in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. The public authorities shall guarantee compliance with the rights of minors and shall ensure their decisions comply with this law and the aforementioned international instrument.”

Pursuant to final provision 13 of the aforementioned Law on the legal protection of minors, a second paragraph was added to Article 216 of the Civil Code, which provides as follows: Article 216 “The functions of guardianship constitute a duty. They shall be performed for the benefit of the person for whom the guardian has been appointed and subject to the protection of the judicial authorities. The measures and action contemplated by Article 158 of this Code may also be ordered by the court, on its own initiative or on the application of any interested party, in all cases of de facto or de jure guardianship or custody of minors, ... if their interest so requires.” Article 158 of the Civil Code provides as follows: Article 158 “The court shall, on its own initiative, or on an application by the child, a parent or the public prosecutor, order the following measures: ... (2) appropriate action on a transfer of custody to avoid the unsettling the child in a way that is harmful; (3) in general, any other action it considers expedient to remove the child from danger or prevent it coming to harm. All such measures may be ordered in any civil or criminal proceedings ...”

E. Provisions of the Civil Code on the legal representation of minor children

The provisions read as follows: Article 154 “Responsibility for dependent minors shall be vested in their mother and father. Parental responsibility shall always be exercised in the child’s interest and in accordance with its personality; it shall include the following powers and duties: (1) to provide the child with protection, company, food, an upbringing and proper guidance; (2) to represent the child and administer its property; ... Parents may seek judicial assistance when exercising their parental responsibility. ...” Article 162 “Parents in whom parental responsibility is vested shall represent their dependent minor children in legal matters. ...”

F. Domestic practice in criminal proceedings on the abduction of a minor child by one of its parents

In general, the Spanish courts have refused to characterise a failure by a person with parental responsibility for a minor to return the child as false imprisonment or kidnapping, offences under Articles 163 to 165 of the Criminal Code carrying between four and ten years’ imprisonment. Under the case-law, a person guilty of such conduct may only be prosecuted for criminal contempt or extortion under Article 556 of the Criminal Code, for which the punishment is six months’ to one year’s imprisonment.

Institutional Law no. 9/2002 of 10 December 2002 amended the provisions of the Criminal and Civil Codes dealing with the abduction of minors.

As regards the position under the criminal law, the explanatory memorandum to the Law indicated that a clearly worded provision, creating a separate offence from the generic offence of criminal contempt, had become necessary when the person guilty of removing or failing to return the minor was one of the parents and custody of the minor had been lawfully granted to the other parent or to another person or institution in the child’s interest.

The Law inserted a new Article 225 bis in the Criminal Code, worded as follows: “1. A parent who, without any justification, abducts his or her minor child shall be liable on conviction to between two and four years’ imprisonment and shall forfeit his or her parental responsibility for between four and ten years.

For the purposes of this Article, the following acts shall be deemed to constitute abduction: (i) transferring a minor from his place of residence without the consent of the parent with whom he or she habitually resides or the persons to whom or institutions to which custody of the minor has been granted; (ii) failing to return a minor in material breach of an obligation arising under a judicial or administrative decision.

If the minor is removed from Spain or a condition is imposed for its return, the sentence shall be in the upper half of the range set out in paragraph 1. ...

The penalties stated in this Article shall also apply to any person from whom the minor is descended or any relative of the parent by blood or marriage up to the second degree who has committed the aforementioned acts.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e1
001-61069_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
56673/00
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e2
001-61069_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e3
001-61069_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e4
001-61069_a11_em4
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs María Iglesias Gil
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e5
001-61069_a11_em5
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.I.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e6
001-61069_a11_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
22 December 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e7
001-61069_a11_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Thomas Mulet
BELIEF
correct
001-61069_a11_e8
001-61069_a11_em8
ORG
QUASI
Palma de Mallorca Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e2
001-61069_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-61069_a11_em2
Spanish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e9
001-61069_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Borrego Borrego
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e10
001-61069_a11_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Legal Department for Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e11
001-61069_a11_em12
MISC
QUASI
child abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e12
001-61069_a11_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e13
001-61069_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e14
001-61069_a11_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
5 March 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e15
001-61069_a11_em16
LOC
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e16
001-61069_a11_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e9
001-61069_a11_em18
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Borrego Borrego
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e17
001-61069_a11_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Legal Department for Human Rights, Ministry of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e7
001-61069_a11_em20
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Thomas Mulet
BELIEF
check
001-61069_a11_e8
001-61069_a11_em21
ORG
QUASI
Palma de Mallorca Bar
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e4
001-61069_a11_em22
PERSON
DIRECT
001-61069_a11_em4
María Iglesias Gil
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e18
001-61069_a11_em23
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1961
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em24
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e5
001-61069_a11_em25
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.I.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e20
001-61069_a11_em26
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e21
001-61069_a11_em27
DATETIME
QUASI
8 September 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em28
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e23
001-61069_a11_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
3 June 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e5
001-61069_a11_em30
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.I.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e24
001-61069_a11_em31
DATETIME
QUASI
7 December 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em32
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e25
001-61069_a11_em33
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e26
001-61069_a11_em34
ORG
QUASI
Vigo Family Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e5
001-61069_a11_em35
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.I.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e27
001-61069_a11_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
1 February 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em37
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e28
001-61069_a11_em38
MISC
QUASI
abducted
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em39
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e30
001-61069_a11_em40
LOC
NO_MASK
France
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e31
001-61069_a11_em41
LOC
NO_MASK
Belgium
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e32
001-61069_a11_em42
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em43
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em44
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e11
001-61069_a11_em45
MISC
QUASI
child abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e34
001-61069_a11_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
4 February 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em47
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em48
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em49
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em50
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em51
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em52
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e35
001-61069_a11_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
19 February 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em54
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em55
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em56
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em57
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e36
001-61069_a11_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e37
001-61069_a11_em59
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e38
001-61069_a11_em60
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e39
001-61069_a11_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
5 June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em62
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em63
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e40
001-61069_a11_em64
CODE
NO_MASK
1/1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e41
001-61069_a11_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
15 January 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e42
001-61069_a11_em66
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em67
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e43
001-61069_a11_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em69
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e44
001-61069_a11_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
23 September 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e45
001-61069_a11_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
5 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em72
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e11
001-61069_a11_em73
MISC
QUASI
child abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e46
001-61069_a11_em74
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e47
001-61069_a11_em75
DATETIME
QUASI
2 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e12
001-61069_a11_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e48
001-61069_a11_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
3 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em78
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em79
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em80
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em81
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em82
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em83
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e49
001-61069_a11_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
9 November 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e12
001-61069_a11_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e50
001-61069_a11_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
17 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e12
001-61069_a11_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e11
001-61069_a11_em88
MISC
QUASI
child abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e51
001-61069_a11_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
5 September 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em90
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e5
001-61069_a11_em91
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.I.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e52
001-61069_a11_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e53
001-61069_a11_em93
DATETIME
QUASI
22 February 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e54
001-61069_a11_em94
DATETIME
QUASI
12 February 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e26
001-61069_a11_em95
ORG
QUASI
Vigo Family Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em96
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e25
001-61069_a11_em97
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e25
001-61069_a11_em98
DATETIME
QUASI
20 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e27
001-61069_a11_em99
DATETIME
QUASI
1 February 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em100
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e55
001-61069_a11_em101
DATETIME
NO_MASK
April 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em102
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e56
001-61069_a11_em103
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em104
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e57
001-61069_a11_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em106
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e58
001-61069_a11_em107
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e59
001-61069_a11_em108
DATETIME
QUASI
18 April 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em109
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e60
001-61069_a11_em110
DATETIME
QUASI
February 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e61
001-61069_a11_em111
DATETIME
QUASI
12 May 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em112
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e62
001-61069_a11_em113
DATETIME
QUASI
18 June 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em114
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em115
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e63
001-61069_a11_em116
DATETIME
QUASI
14 July 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e64
001-61069_a11_em117
ORG
NO_MASK
Family Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em118
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e22
001-61069_a11_em119
PERSON
NO_MASK
A.U.A.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e19
001-61069_a11_em120
LOC
QUASI
Vigo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em121
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em122
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e65
001-61069_a11_em123
DATETIME
QUASI
6 December 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e32
001-61069_a11_em124
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e66
001-61069_a11_em125
DATETIME
QUASI
16 February 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e67
001-61069_a11_em126
MISC
QUASI
Child Abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e68
001-61069_a11_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
25 October 1980
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em128
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e69
001-61069_a11_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
16 June 1987
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e32
001-61069_a11_em130
LOC
QUASI
United States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e70
001-61069_a11_em131
DATETIME
QUASI
29 April 1988
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e71
001-61069_a11_em132
ORG
NO_MASK
Contracting State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e71
001-61069_a11_em133
ORG
NO_MASK
Contracting State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e72
001-61069_a11_em134
ORG
NO_MASK
Contracting States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-61069_a11_e71
001-61069_a11_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Contracting State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e73
001-61069_a11_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e73
001-61069_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e73
001-61069_a11_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e71
001-61069_a11_em139
ORG
NO_MASK
Contracting State
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e72
001-61069_a11_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Contracting States
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e74
001-61069_a11_em141
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six weeks
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e73
001-61069_a11_em142
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e73
001-61069_a11_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e38
001-61069_a11_em144
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e38
001-61069_a11_em145
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e73
001-61069_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Central Authority
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e40
001-61069_a11_em147
CODE
NO_MASK
1/1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e41
001-61069_a11_em148
DATETIME
QUASI
15 January 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e75
001-61069_a11_em149
ORG
QUASI
Official Gazette
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em150
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em151
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em152
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e3
001-61069_a11_em153
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e76
001-61069_a11_em154
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four and ten years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e77
001-61069_a11_em155
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six months’
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e38
001-61069_a11_em156
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e78
001-61069_a11_em157
CODE
NO_MASK
9/2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e16
001-61069_a11_em158
DATETIME
QUASI
10 December 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em159
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e79
001-61069_a11_em160
DATETIME
NO_MASK
two and four years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-61069_a11_e76
001-61069_a11_em161
DATETIME
NO_MASK
four and ten years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e33
001-61069_a11_em162
MISC
QUASI
abduction
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-61069_a11_e29
001-61069_a11_em163
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
María Iglesias Gil
ESP
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: María Iglesias Gil