Civil Guard cover a body on Tarajal Beach in February 2014.J. sanchez
The Constitutional Court will decide whether or not to permanently close the investigation into the El Tarajal tragedy that killed 15 immigrants trying to swim to Ceuta. The matter was dealt with in the fourth section of the court, which has agreed to refer it to the Second Chamber so that the latter can refer it in turn to the plenary, given the constitutional relevance of the case and its social interest given the great debate that triggered the events. In the fourth section, there was no unanimity regarding the possible admission to handle the Amparo complaint that was filed and for this reason it was relegated to the second room where, according to court sources, the filter is expected to pass, so it will be admitted and sent to the forwarded to plenary, where the case will be re-examined to decide whether the archive of investigations and its possible inadequacy have led to a violation of immigrants’ rights.
The Amparo complaint, which is now being processed, was brought by the NGO Association for Human Rights of Spain (APDHE), the Spanish Commission for Refugee Assistance (CEAR-Refugio) and the Neighborhood Coordinator, who believe the investigation is closed was mistakenly closed, violating the basic rights of the immigrants who tried to reach Tarajal Beach and those who survived.
The events occurred on February 6, 2014, the day more than 200 immigrants attempted to swim to Ceuta’s beach and were repelled by 56 Civil Guard officers stationed along the coast who fired 145 rubber bullets and five smoke cans. Fifteen of the immigrants, most of them from sub-Saharan Africa, perished. Another 23 members of the group achieved their goal of reaching the Ceuta area, but were immediately turned back to Morocco in a so-called “hot eviction.”
A judicial inquiry was launched into the incident, which experienced various ups and downs. Initially, 16 agents were charged with the alleged crime of involuntary manslaughter, but the case was dropped when the judge of Ceuta’s Investigative Court No. 6 concluded that the use of the material to ward off the attackers was unobjectionable. The above NGOs appealed this decision and the Court of Ceuta resumed the investigation, which was resubmitted in 2020. There was a new challenge to the agreement, this time before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal that had been filed.
All this made possible the submission of the Amparo motion, which will shortly arrive at the plenary session of the Constitutional Court, which in turn will request new reports on the case, after a first debate in the aforementioned Fourth Division of the Court, where there was no consensus on admission to the appeals process. This department consists of three judges, María Luisa Balaguer, Ramón Sáez and Enrique Arnaldo. The first two belong to the progressive sector of the Guarantee Authority and the third to the conservative bloc.
Justices Balaguer and Sáez voted in favor of admission to the trial, and Justice Arnaldo expressed his desire to present a dissenting vote. To this end, he suggested that the matter should be dealt with in the second room of the court, and this was agreed. Admission is taken for granted in the court itself, as the above court consists of four progressive and two conservative judges.
What affects most is what happens closer. Subscribe so you don’t miss anything.
subscribe to
In addition to Balaguer and Sáez, this section also includes Judge Inmaculada Montalbán, who presides over the court as Vice-President, and Laura Díez from the Progressive Group. And alongside Arnaldo, judge César Tolosa, from the conservative sector, also belongs to this space. The referral to the second chamber implies that the decision to admit or not to proceed must have the character of an order, which in turn gives the judge who voted against, Enrique Arnaldo, the opportunity to set out in writing the reasons for his personal dissent Poll. Court sources believe that the course of the first debate on the case in the Guarantee Panel indicates that there will not be unanimity in the plenary either.
In addition to this first request for protection from the above-mentioned NGOs, the Constitutional Court is awaiting the admission or denial of another appeal submitted by relatives of the deceased. In their lawsuit, they not only express their opposition to the archiving of the investigation, but also demand that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the remains of the migrants killed while trying to swim to Tarajal Beach are returned to them. have lost their lives.
The sources consulted in the suretyship court suggest that, given the existing connection between the two claims, the two resources will in all likelihood be combined to process them rhythmically. However, there is no certainty that the relatives’ case will be allowed to be processed as it has not yet been reviewed by any court department. Some judges from the progressive sector, given their obvious material connection and for reasons of humanity and consideration for the families of the deceased, will propose merging the two appeals as soon as possible.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits