The latest session of “Thursday Law at CUNEF Universidad” focuses on Law and memory

This year’s last seminar of the cycle “Thursday Law at CUNEF Universidad” focused on the relationship between memory and Law. The session, held in the Auditorium of the Almansa Campus with discussants Pablo de Lora, Professor of Philosophy of Law at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Liborio Hierro, Professor Emeritus at the same university, and Alicia Gil Gil, Professor of Criminal Law at UNED, was chaired by Andrés Betancor, Director of the Department of Law at CUNEF Universidad.

The speakers addressed the relationship between memory and law based on the premise that memory laws must balance recognition, legal protection and respect for democratic pluralism. Pablo de Lora pointed out that these laws must “protect basic rights and respect the diverse perspectives that exist in a democratic society”, without imposing univocal interpretations of historical facts.

Legal role, symbolic scope and regulatory limits

Liborio Hierro called for sustained legal prudence to prevent these laws from gaining excessive symbolic weight. He stated that “memory laws should avoid excessive symbolic meaning and focus on protecting rights and legal certainty”, warning that, when symbolic aspects displace effective regulation, the law can “become hollow rhetoric”.

From a criminal perspective, Alicia Gil analysed the 2022 Democratic Memory Law and pointed out that the definition of victim “was imprecise and excessively broad from a technical perspective”. In her opinion, the law raised expectations, including repealed rulings or certain forms of reparation, which “have not always produced actual legal effects”, and she is not convinced that the government has handled processes like exhumations or identifications effectively. She added that victim protection “should have been regulated without compromising essential legal principles”.

The debate also addressed the administrative sanctions contained in the regulations. Professor de Lora voiced doubts about their restrictive potential, while Professor Hierro recalled that these measures “were aimed at specific acts of violence”. Professor Gil proposed reviewing their proportionality and whether they, as well as the so-called crimes of humiliation, should continue to exist, considering that the current context has changed versus the circumstances that led to their creation.

Memory, victims and democratic cohesion

The speakers also analysed transitional justice processes. Alicia Gil explained that victims’ rights (truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition) “can be fulfilled using mechanisms that are not necessarily criminal”, and stressed that the institutional recognition of the injustice suffered “also constitutes a valid form of reparation”.

Liborio Hierro pointed out the risk of reinterpreting historical episodes in such a way as to rekindle tensions that were resolved and insisted that memory laws “should contribute to strengthening democratic coexistence”.

During the session, the speakers agreed that the main challenges faced by these laws are maintaining institutional impartiality, protecting individual rights, avoiding official interpretations of the past and encouraging a legal vision that contributes to social cohesion.

With this session, CUNEF Universidad closes this year’s calendar of the “Thursday Law” cycle, consolidated as an academic benchmark where legal experts, academics and professionals analyse current issues with a rigorous, plural and critical vision.