When Spanish monarch Juan Carlos thanked Moroccan King Mohammed VI for pardoning Spanish prisoners, no one imagined that the presence of a pedophile among them would provoke angry reactions and that there would be condemnation of the fact that a man convicted of such horrific crimes was pardoned. Moreover, the incident - which occurred due to neglect and apathy - affected the relations between Madrid and Rabat, and while this humanitarian initiative was supposed to promote cooperation between the two neighboring countries, it backfired and each side started throwing the ball in the other's court. When it comes to relationships between states, there is nothing new about the presentation of requests for the release or repatriation of nationals to spend their sentences in their own countries. However, the ethical facet in the case of Spanish citizen of Iraqi descent Daniel Galvan Vina transformed this pardon, which reflects feelings of forgiveness to allow prisoners to breathe freedom and reintegrate society, into a controversial topic that mobilized activists, child defenders, fighters of sexual harassment, and defenders of human rights. The Spanish and Moroccans fell in a trap which no one set up for them. And while Juan Carlos could have used the Moroccan pardon as an opportunity to show that his last visit to Rabat resulted in a humanitarian understanding to be added to the political one, he became more embarrassed about his name's association with a request which he is not believed to have made. And while Mohammed VI appeared pleased about the converging viewpoints between the two neighboring states in regard to vital issues, one person's name infiltrated the Spanish list, undermined all the desired dimensions, and transformed the humanitarian event into a political moral swamp for both countries. It is likely that the issue will cause further repercussions, considering that conservative societies usually have a tendency to overstate their positions when it comes to moral cases. But what is noticeable is that the issue did not stop at this level, seeing how Moroccan Justice and Freedoms Minister Mustafa al-Ramid, a leader in the ruling Justice and Development Party, immediately denied any responsibility for including the name of the Spanish convict on the list of released prisoners. In other words, he intentionally distanced himself from any blame. However, the most significant development resided in the Royal Court's release, which was accurate, honest, and similar to a pleading before history. As long as the accused benefitted from this pardon and as long as a decision was issued to deport him outside the country and is irreversible, there are at least health reasons which might have been behind the "ousting" of this convict from Morocco. According to the statement, Mohammed VI was never informed about the seriousness of the crimes attributed to the Spanish prisoner, and would never have approved this pardon due to the gravity of the crimes he committed. This clearly means that the measures in force when drawing up the lists of those who can benefit from the pardon, backed up by documents and facts based on follow-up and the monitoring of the behavior of the concerned convicts were not respected, or were at least disregarded for some reason. This goes against the purpose of pardon decisions, which usually aim to settle a humanitarian or social situation or overcome the possible mistakes of the judiciary. In that sense, the order given by the Moroccan monarch to launch an investigation into this case's implications, should tackle the measures implemented prior to the issuance of the pardon. In addition, the concerned committees include officials from the Justice Ministry, the judicial authority and the Royal Court, which means that the investigation will affect influential figures and eventually determine who was responsible. Therefore, this unfortunate event might act as a starting point for the reassessment of the method and approach adopted when issuing pardons. Legally and constitutionally, the country's monarch has the right to issue pardons, knowing that the constitution went even further and granted the legislative institution similar prerogatives while awaiting the ratification of the law regulating this matter. And as much as this development expanded the scope of amnesties in light of pending files with a political and religious character – in addition to the status of the detainees from the Salafi Jihadist organization – the procedural aspects continued to have the upper hand in the adaptation of the files. Nonetheless, the strong message embodied by the demonstrations which followed the pardon reveals that the street's awareness precedes all sorts of accommodations between the topical laws and cosmic values. Indeed, there is awareness and a taste of human rights which no longer tolerates the harassment of children. And just like controversy erupted over the marriage of minors to their rapists, childhood and motherhood have become red lines that cannot be approached, except in the context of the advancement of a society of equality and justice. And it is no coincidence that the margin of error narrows when it come to the preservation of people's dignity, which has become their most precious belonging.
