Sijena: The Government insists it will return the murals, but supports the MNAC board of trustees who declare themselves incapable of doing so.

In the ruling by Huesca's Court of First Instance No. 1 , Judge Carmen Aznar granted ownership of the Sijena murals to the Aragonese monastery and approved their transfer, "but not in any way," she stated. This ruling, which recognized the fragility of the pieces, was the one ratified by the Supreme Court last May. What's happening now? Why hasn't a timeline for their return been established yet? According to the MNAC, we are at the point where they are looking for "a way," and they claim there isn't one.

From this perspective, the government has embarked on a strange trickster's game. On the one hand, they accept the Supreme Court's ruling and claim their commitment to returning the works. On the other, they rely on the decision of the Mnac board of trustees, an institution of which they are a member. On June 23, they filed a petition for an enforcement incident in court, stating their "technical inability to carry out the transfer." In other words, "there is no way" to return the pieces without damaging them.

Following a meeting of the Catalan government's executive council, the Catalan government spokesperson and Minister of Territory, Silvia Paneque , reiterated today the commitment of the Generalitat to comply with the ruling, as required by the Government of Aragon. However, at the same time, she simply stated that they will support whatever the Mnac board of trustees decides. It should be remembered that they are also part of said board. The key to this dual stance, contradictory in principle, is that the Generalitat categorically refuses to assume the risk of damaging the pieces if they are ultimately moved to the Monastery of Sijena. It will be the Government of Aragon that must publicly assume that risk.

According to Paneque, the Generalitat will follow a process of: "Accompaniment, monitoring, and adherence to whatever the Board of Trustees and the MNAC decide." The government spokesperson's statements do not differ much from those she made on June 3. "There is no doubt that the will is to comply with the ruling," she asserted at the time, while adding that they must "wait" for the technical reports. It should be recalled that last week a technical committee was created, with experts from the MNAC, the Generalitat, Barcelona City Council, and the Government of Aragon, to assess "the way" to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

The Aragón technicians left the commission on June 23rd, when the MNAC ( National Council of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia) filed a lawsuit alleging its "technical incapacity." According to Aragón, this working group has proven to be a "trap commission" designed to conceal its disobedience of the ruling.

For its part, the MNAC (National Museum of Contemporary Art) wanted to differentiate between secular paintings , whose transfer is more feasible, and murals. Both are part of the process, but the former were not affected by the 1936 fire that forced the murals to be moved. This makes it more feasible to find a way to reintegrate them into the Sijena Monastery without damaging them, something that is not the case with the murals.

According to the Supreme Court, the deadline for returning the murals should not exceed 20 calendar days. This means that the deadline expired on June 23rd, the date on which the MNAC filed its controversial enforcement motion in court, clearly stating its "technical inability" to comply with the ruling.

Now we'll have to wait and see what the court will say about this execution incident and whether Aragon will succeed in forcing the removal of the pieces to comply with the ruling. Meanwhile, the Illa government continues to play both sides, advocating for their return but at the same time accepting whatever the MNAC board decides. Who will find the "way" demanded by the judge of the Huesca Court of First Instance for the return of the pieces? What is clear is that in this game of chess, the last pieces have yet to be moved.