Spain’s own assessment for the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) projects an image of commitment to democratic values and human rights. Yet this self-portrait conceals serious structural contradictions. Spain continues to fail in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling its duties with regard to fundamental rights relating to linguistic and cultural identity, democratic participation, and civil liberties. These concerns were echoed and validated by both UN special procedures and a wide range of state delegations during today’s 49th UPR session.
Spain’s official report is notably silent on issues regarding national minorities, particularly the Catalan people. Despite being one of the most politically and culturally distinct nations within the Spanish state, Catalonia’s aspirations for self-government and protection of its language and identity are entirely omitted. Notably, Spain made no reference to the Catalan language in its overview of education policy, despite it being the vehicular language of instruction in Catalonia. This absence reflects a broader refusal to acknowledge Catalonia’s linguistic and cultural rights. Several states, including the Marshall Islands, explicitly recommended that Spain promote language diversity and protect the rights of linguistic minorities, emphasizing the need to prohibit discrimination based on language.
Stakeholders and UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues[i] raise serious concerns about Spain’s suppression of political dissent, particularly in the context of the Catalan independence movement. The national report calls for respect for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. However, this is directly contradicted by repeated cases of judicial harassment, disproportionate criminal charges, and even surveillance of Catalan politicians, civil society leaders, and journalists. Venezuela condemned the “criminalisation, persecution, and imprisonment of opponents, dissidents, human rights defenders and demonstrators” and called on Spain to end the use of spyware and surveillance programmes against civil society—an unmistakable reference to the Pegasus scandal targeting Catalan figures. Similarly, Canada and Norway recommended amending the Organic Law on Citizen Security (the so-called “Gag Law”), which has been used to suppress protests and penalise peaceful activists.
Freedom of expression and political participation were major themes during the interactive dialogue. Ireland, the Czech Republic, and Indonesia expressed concern over Spain’s failure to align its legislation with international standards, particularly regarding the use of racial and ethnic profiling and the treatment of minorities. The Czech Republic also specifically called for the harmonisation of Spanish law on torture and incommunicado detention with international human rights law—practices that have historically impacted Basque and Catalan political prisoners. Significantly, South Africa invoked the right to self-determination, urging Spain to extend the solidarity it shows for international causes like Palestine to “all peoples under foreign occupation .
Another key contradiction lies in Spain’s approach to education. While it celebrates its inclusive education strategy, it has ignored growing concerns over central government interference in Catalonia’s education system. Judicial rulings have increasingly mandated the imposition of Spanish as a vehicular language, undermining Catalonia’s immersion model, which is recognised for protecting linguistic diversity. Armenia and Malta stressed the importance of ensuring equal access to education for minorities, a principle that is at risk when local educational autonomy is eroded by the state’s courts and ministries.
The democratic rights of Catalonia’s elected officials also remain under siege. The 2025 Amnesty Law, passed to address the consequences of the judicial persecution stemming from the 2017 referendum, continues to be applied unevenly. Several stakeholders, including Assemblea and other Catalan civil society organisations, report that judicial authorities often use vague interpretations to limit the amnesty’s scope, thereby undermining its restorative intent. No reference is made to this issue in Spain’s national report.
The issue of transitional justice has also been significant. Spain celebrates the enactment of the Democratic Memory Law, yet several countries, including Chile and South Africa, urged further efforts to guarantee truth, justice, and non-repetition for victims of the Franco dictatorship. Catalonia has long demanded transparency and historical accountability, not just for past atrocities, but also for the post-dictatorship repression of democratic movements like Catalonia’s own. Along with other stakeholders, we continue to call for access to archives, repeal of the 1968 Official Secrets Act , and full investigation into unresolved political violence during and after the transition.
In sum, the dialogue and submissions surrounding Spain’s 2025 UPR provide further confirmation that Spain continues to resist recognising the Catalan people’s legitimate and peaceful aspirations for self-determination. It fails to adequately protect their language, suppresses their political expression, and avoids accountability for systemic abuses. While the government presents a facade of progressive policy and human rights engagement, the reality experienced by Catalans—especially those engaged in the independence movement—is one of restriction and repression
[i] “29. Special procedure mandate holders were concerned by the interference with the human rights of Catalan leaders and other minority activists to freely hold and express their views and assemble peacefully and participate in associations.50 The Special Rapporteur on minority issues joined concerns about restrictions placed on, criminal charges against, and the subsequent trials and sentences of political figures and protesters belonging to the Catalan minority. According to him, the purpose of the criminal charges brought against those individuals was to intimidate them because of their political views. He recommended reviewing the legal definition of the crime of sedition to guarantee that it did not unduly criminalize acts of peaceful civil disobedience or impose disproportionate punishments for other actions related to the exercise by minorities of their freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly”. – UN Human Rights Council. Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Forty-ninth session. 28 April-9 May 2025.