A/HRC/22/45 Spain Number of outstanding cases at the beginning of the period under review 4 Cases transmitted to the Government during the period under review: 0 Cases clarified during the period under review: 1 Cases sent under the urgent action procedure Cases sent under the standard procedure Government 0 0 1 Non-governmental sources Number of outstanding cases at the end of the year under review 0 3 Number of cases on which Multiple replies on some cases the Government has replied Number of cases of possible clarification by Government (6-month rule) 1 0 Yes Urgent appeal N/A Government response N/A General allegation N/A Government response N/A Prompt intervention letter Yes Government response Yes Working Group request for a visit Yes Invitation extended Yes Prompt intervention 349. On 3 February 2012, the Working Group, together with one other Special Procedures mechanism, sent a prompt intervention letter to the Government regarding allegations that Judge Baltasar Garzón was suspended from his functions in May 2010 and submitted to a criminal trial for breach of legal duty. The Government replied to the prompt intervention letter on 13 March 2012. Information from the Government 350. The Government transmitted four communications dated 12 December 2011, 13 March 2012, 4 July 2012 and 31 October 2012. 351. In the first communication, the Government submitted information on one outstanding case. The information provided was not considered sufficient to lead to the clarification of the case. 352. In the second communication, dated 13 March 2012, the Government replied to the prompt intervention letter of 3 February 2012, stating that the information received by the Working Group was incomplete and not accurate. For instance, it was mentioned that judge Garzón himself declared that the jurisdiction to investigate the alleged cases of enforced disappearances had to be assigned to the different territorially competent courts. With respect to the status of the trial against judge Garzón, the Government informed that the Supreme Court acquitted him on 27 February 2012. 353. The third communication concerned three outstanding cases. The information provided was not considered sufficient for the clarification of the cases. 354. The fourth communication concerned one outstanding case. The information provided was not considered sufficient for the clarification of the case. Information from sources 355. Sources provided information concerning one outstanding case. 97