The Constitutional Court confirmed a decision related to an alleged drug trafficker extradited from Colombia in May 2021, while addressing a judge from the National Court and his search for a simulation of international trade operations tied to drug routes. The court ruled that the individual should not have remained in prison for a narcotics crime beyond the permitted time without the proper extension, noting a delay of up to two years since his arrest in the Andean country.
Legal sources consulted by El Periódico de España, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, indicate that the ruling cancels several decisions issued by the central investigating judge and the Criminal Division of the Court. It could have led to the immediate release of the accused, but practical reasons delayed this outcome because the detainee had already secured bail for several months.
In essence, the First Division of the guaranteeing establishment on 14 November clarified how the detention period should be calculated when it intersects with a return process, describing a conflict between pretrial detention and the extradition timeline.
The ruling acknowledges that the investigating judge violated the appellant’s right to liberty under Article 17 of the constitution. Even though the Criminal Procedure Code does not specify the exact start date for counting deprivation of liberty, it is up to judicial organs to determine that moment. The court emphasizes the need to interpret this right in the most appropriate way, a concept known as the favor libertatis. Consequently, the Constitution sends the case back to just before the first of the annulled decisions was issued in March 2021, so the judiciary can issue a new decision that respects this fundamental right.
The detainee, Gregory, was the subject of inquiries by the Central Education Court No. 2 of the National Court in cases opened in 2019 involving drug trafficking, criminal organization, and simulations of international trade operations between companies to commit these offenses. On March 12, 2020, a judge issued an international and European arrest warrant as he entered preventive detention.
Arrested four days after the order
Only four days later, Gregory was arrested in Bogota, Colombia. His arrest was ordered on 24 March to prevent flight, while the extradition to Spain was certified on 26 May 2021. The warrant was confirmed by the judge the following day.
He returned in March and sought immediate release, arguing that he had spent a total of two years in a provisional state—from March 16, 2020, to March 16, 2022—without standing trial and lacking an extension to the injunction, unlike others investigated in the same conspiracy.
Should time in Colombia be counted?
The detainee claimed that the computation should start from the moment he was arrested at his home in Colombia, not from his surrender to Spanish authorities. Both Judge Moreno and the Criminal Division of the National Court rejected this approach in separate rulings, which the Constitutional Court has now overturned. His defense also argued that since the originally agreed maximum pretrial detention period had been exceeded, any further extension would contravene the doctrine of the guaranteeing institution.
Judge Moreno had previously refused the detainee’s release, arguing that the period of deprivation of liberty in Colombia should not be counted for extradition purposes under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also accepted the Spanish Anti-Drug Prosecutor’s Office position: the delay caused by Colombian authorities in processing the extradition was beyond the control of the Spanish courts, and the case continued on Spanish soil.
The judge added that the seriousness of the crime, the detainee’s personal circumstances, and the potential punishment all indicated a high flight risk, a view that the National Court’s Criminal Division endorsed last April. The defense contends that the measure should have been reviewed before March 16, 2022, arguing that fundamental rights were violated due to the delay. The decision corrects the automatic logic used by the National Court, according to Judge María Luisa Balague.
The court emphasizes the need to evaluate all personal and procedural circumstances considered in the amparo case. It notes that extradition does not automatically imply the detainee’s flight or intent to evade Spanish justice. In this case, the facts involve proactive actions aimed at accelerating the return process, meaning the length of deprivation of liberty in Colombia prior to extradition should be counted for proper legal purposes and fairness. This ruling invites a careful, human-centered review of the whole timeline to ensure constitutional rights are protected and proportional to the situation.
Notes from the court stress that the interpretation of pretrial detention and extradition timing must reflect real-world dynamics, including actions by authorities in both countries, to avoid a repeated pattern of infringement on liberty rights. The decision marks a turning point in how the judiciary assesses the balance between extradition speed, due process, and personal liberty in international cases, while cited sources indicate the need to align practices with constitutional guarantees. [Source: El Periódico de España, Prensa Ibérica, with attribution to the involved courts and officials.]