In a European military proceeding, defendants may invoke their right to remain silent to avoid testifying or confessing guilt, a principle supported by constitutional case law. At the same time, while the evidence points to the fact that Sergeant Saúl Antonio SG fired the bullet that killed Majorcan legionnaire Alejandro Jiménez, the court noted that the precise manner in which the action occurred was difficult to determine, a circumstance that, in the court’s view, serves the interests of the accused. These elements appear in the legal arguments raised by a person referred to as T. The Military Court of Seville has used these considerations to justify, on one hand, the acquittal of six soldiers accused of concealment among other offenses, and on the other, the imposition of the minimum sentence for the one serviceman convicted for the March 2019 incident. The Agost maneuvering area near Alicante serves as the backdrop for these proceedings, where it is acknowledged that the sergeant acted with gross negligence in firing his weapon, and where a pattern of irregularities marks the case.
The court’s narrative paints a story that glosses over several irregularities. The involved captain was not present during the exercise, and one lieutenant defied a directive that the two platoons should not fire simultaneously. The sergeant likewise disobeyed orders to refrain from opening fire and to keep within control of his troops. He discharged at least seven bullets. When one bullet ended Alejandro Jiménez, the man was in a low guard position with a knee on the ground and the gun pointed downward. Following the drill, soldiers gathered shell casings from the ground. That evening, the captain instructed his officers to present themselves as being present during the exercise, and the next day he ordered a reenactment of the events preceding the planned action. Civil Guard officials were then told to adjust their accounts, and officers were compelled to alter their final positions before inspectors arrived. During the investigation, the sergeant denied firing the gun three times. The captain is reported to have humiliated a Civil Guard member in the presence of the troops. In the aftermath, one legionnaire faced insults from several soldiers who suspected he had disclosed the altered positions during the reconstruction, to the point of taking leave for psychological reasons.
The facts that remain proven include the Civil Guard ballistics report, which linked the fatal bullet to Sergeant Saúl Antonio SG’s rifle. Although the court did not admit that he fired the gun, it recognized that he lied about his involvement, a claim framed by the defense as fully legitimate under the right to defense. The court found that the sergeant violated his duty of care as platoon leader by firing. It is argued that had he shown due diligence before pulling the trigger, the tragedy might have been avoided. Yet the court did not accept a complete understanding of Jiménez’s intent. The verdict sentenced the sergeant to two years and eight months in prison for a fatal offense against service effectiveness, factoring in the gravity of the outcome and the reasoning that the inability to determine the exact manner of the act could favor the accused. Two additional sentences—six and eight months—for abuse of power by a legionnaire who insulted others were appended to the judgment.
As for the other defendants, the court noted that they exercised their rights as investigators proceeded and offered statements rather than voluntary testimony. It characterized the captain’s conduct as inappropriate, aimed at concealing his own absence from the exercise and the fact that the conduct diverged from the planned sequence. The court acquitted him of concealment, concluding that he did not know precisely who fired the bullet at the time. The court found that there was no conspiracy to divert attention from the crime, only a mistaken belief about which team fired the shot, and it did not regard the removal of partitions or harassment of a legionnaire as criminal on the basis presented.
The case underscores the tension between military discipline and the rights of personnel under investigation. It also highlights how courts evaluate the credibility of testimony when the exact sequence of events cannot be pinned down beyond doubt. The central question remains whether the actions taken by the sergeant, and the subsequent attempts to adjust testimonies and positions, reflect a legitimate exercise of duty or a pattern of negligence and cover-up that undermines service integrity. The verdict reflects the court’s attempt to balance accountability with the realities of limited forensic precision and the rights afforded to those accused in a high-pressure training scenario.
Notes accompanying the proceedings emphasize that the bullet came from the sergeant’s rifle, as indicated by ballistic analysis. Even though the court did not formally find that the sergeant fired, it acknowledged an element of falsification in his statements. The ruling indicates that a failure to exercise due care contributed to the outcome, and it attributes consequences to the sergeant’s leadership role. The sentence and the surrounding discussion illustrate how the justice system weighs the seriousness of the event against the ability to definitively reconstruct every aspect of the incident. Attribution: official trial records and subsequent court statements provide the framework for these conclusions.
The broader implications of the case touch on the responsibilities of officers and the standards applied to protect service efficacy while honoring the rights of all involved. The outcome reveals how investigations are conducted in military settings, how testimonies are treated, and how accountability is assigned when multiple actors are implicated, yet some lines of inquiry remain unresolved due to ambiguities in the evidence.