So, the only valid appeals were those of the father and son who had journeyed to the city. These two appeals were rejected by the Civil Governor and by the Ministry of the Interior, but, since they were valid, they could be taken to the Supreme Court. However, the final result of the two appeals was a defeat for the brothers and for freedom of religious expression.

In most cases the minimum stipulated fine of 2,500 pesetas was exacted, although it never was paid voluntarily. This has to be clarified because, in cases taken to the Supreme Court, the fines had to be deposited beforehand, and, if the case was lost, the fine automatically was forfeited. On the other hand, if the case was won, the money could be reclaimed, although it usually took much longer to get it back than the minimum period required by law for depositing it.

One refreshing exception to this has been the courageous defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses waged by lawyer Eduardo Ajuria, who, while not being a Witness, has shown himself to be truly dedicated to the cause of justice by the rule of law. He has represented Jehovah’s Witnesses on countless occasions, even as far as the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT VICTORIES

There have been times when Jehovah’s Witnesses in Spain have been victorious in legal battles carried to the Supreme Court. So, let us tell you something about certain victories won there.

In 1963 police inspectors visited the “Monte Carlo” pension in Málaga, owned by Francisco Alonso Valle and his wife, Esperanza. They were accused of holding unauthorized meetings. The house was searched, and those fingerprinted included their two small children who were only eight and four years of age. One person who had attended the meetings, Brother Fernández, was so harassed at the barbershop where he worked that he finally lost his job. As a result of this police investigation, four of the accused were fined 500 pesetas each, and Brother Fernández, as a second offender, was fined 2,000 pesetas. He had been fined the year before for being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and had spent fifteen days in prison in lieu of the fine.

The case of these five persons was appealed to the Minister of the Interior. But the appeal was rejected on the grounds that it was deemed that, by their activities, the Witnesses had “threatened the spiritual unity of Spain.” So, the ease was appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 20, 1966, that Court annulled the decision of Málaga’s Civil Governor. It reasoned that obviously in private meetings the commentary given on the Bible would be in agreement with the doctrine professed in common and that, therefore, it could not be considered as proselytizing propaganda. Furthermore, it had not been proved that more than twenty persons had attended the meeting, so that it was not outside the law as an unauthorized meeting. With regard to the holding of our meetings this was a notable victory.

It is interesting to note that during the three years 1964 to 1967 the Supreme Court upheld thirty-eight of the more than fifty convictions that Jehovah’s Witnesses had appealed to that Court. Most of those lost cases had to do with the preaching activity, which constituted for the judges a public manifestation of non-Catholic religious beliefs that they considered to be a violation of the law as it then stood.

On June 10, 1964, two young sisters, Santiaga Sánchez and Encarnita García, were arrested while waiting in a bus they had boarded to go back to their hometown of Torralba de Calatrava. They were taken to the police station in Ciudad Real where they were interrogated from 8 p.m. to 4:30 a.m. Both of them were fined 2,500 pesetas ($42) for “belonging to the sect ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’” and “for making trips to this Capital to carry on proselyting activities for the mentioned sect.” The same night that the sisters were interrogated, three more “suspects” were rounded up and questioned, ending up with their being fined the stipulated minimum of 2,500 pesetas. These fines were appealed to the Ministry of the Interior, which upheld them. The last step was to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The question before the Court was whether one’s admission during interrogation that he was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses was in itself basis for incrimination. The Court observed that, “apart from the individual interrogations,” the police affidavit “had been drawn up without any other activity or effort, neither documental nor by witnesses, either direct or referential, which could serve as a verifying element.” The judges perceived “not only imprecision” in regard to the police investigation, but a complete absence of proof, which evidence is necessary “in any case in order to consider as true the facts upon which the assumption is based.” Hence, the Court concluded that from the “interrogations, only a personal conviction is deduced.” As to the charge of public proselytism, the Court held that “not in any case is verification achieved nor does the affidavit even try to do so.” For these reasons the five accused persons were acquitted, although they never recovered the full amount deposited for the fines.