Military court to try death of a legionnaire at Agost training ground

In a sentence to which EFE had access, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by the lawyer of the legionnaires’ family against the decision of the Second Regional Military Court, and that court held that it was a regular criminal court that decided the trial. accused.

The decision recalls that in August 2020, the Almería-based Regional Military Court No. 23 accepted the prosecution of the sergeant, who allegedly was the perpetrator of the bullet that ended the life of the army stationed in Viator (Almería), for crimes against the efficiency of the service. against abuse of power and the administration of justice, “in the manner of causing the death of another through gross negligence”.

A captain was also tried for his crimes cover up and disobediencea; a lieutenant for offenses against the effectiveness of the service, against the duties of command, concealment and disobedience; another lieutenant for a crime against the effectiveness of the service and disloyalty to another; and a corporal and three soldiers were added for cover-up charges, and in the case of one of the soldiers, another offense was added for insulting a soldier.

In December of the same year, the same court, oral trial against these eight soldiers, and a few days later, the deceased’s family briefed the Second Regional Military Court demanding “special clarification under the concept of lack of jurisdiction”.

Given all this is sufficient evidence to determine that the death was intentional—that is, intentional— Military Penal Code “Deliberate manslaughter or murder is unthinkable.”

“Procedural representation of the appellants is intended, through the defenses put forward, to give an early decision on the case. presence or absence of fraud In order to qualify the conduct of the accused sergeant as lawful murder or, alternatively, deliberate manslaughter,” the Supreme Court said.

In this sense, the high court “overlooks the fact that such an issue should now be discussed and debated in oral proceedings by presenting the appropriate conclusions, without impeding the procedural representation of the appellants and the account of the facts it deems appropriate according to the evidence applied to them”.

If “the death of legionnaire Don Alejandro Jiménez Cruz is legally presumed to constitute willful manslaughter or even murder”, the Supreme Court then states that “an official or inadmissible pardon” has been made to the relevant jurisdiction.

“In any event, and on the basis of what has just been stated, we can only conclude that the reasoned position of the Second Regional Military Court is correct (…) It is impossible to agree with the claim that the organ in question pronounced itself beforehand.“, Add.

In this respect, the Court of Cassation argues that whatever the type of fraud may be, it can only be determined through the evaluation of the evidence tools used in the oral trial depending on the principles of publicity, verbal and contradiction, and as a result of this. .