TSJA’s criminal law office agreed to maintain the sentences handed down to four individuals accused of killing councilor Javier Ardines on August 16, 2018 in Llanes. The court upheld the sentence of twenty-two years for the person who instigated the plan and bore financial responsibility, and twenty years for the individual who recruited others to carry out the act. During the hearing on May 17, the court rejected all objections raised by the defense. Jesús Muguruza, the intermediary between the instigator Pedro Luis Nieva and the perpetrators Djilali Benatia and Maamar Kelii, admitted the facts and asserted them. He stated that his initial Civil Guard statement, later revised due to an official issue, contained the truth and that his aim was simply to stop the victim, not to cause a fatal outcome.
The decision was issued by the rapporteur Judge Ignacio Vidau Argüelles. The defense, led by Javier Beramendi, argued nullity issues that had previously been dismissed in June 2021, including challenges to the wiretaps against the alleged instigator and questions about whether any alternative investigative lines were pursued. They referenced finding traces of Ardines’s relationship on fences used in the ambush that led to his death.
Nieva’s defense also sought annulment of the trial on the grounds that Jesús Muguruza’s first statement before the Civil Guard was unlawful, claiming this would have allowed identification of the instigators and assassins. The TSJA, however, reaffirmed its stance: the Civil Guard could identify the suspects through other means, and there was no unlawful link between Muguruza’s earlier statement and the subsequent proceedings.
The TSJA once again supports the Llanes judge’s February 2019 decision to place Benatia, Nieva, and Muguruza in solitary confinement. The court suggested that the measure aimed to prevent information leaks and to avoid undermining the strategy or planning among those considered responsible for the crime, emphasizing that the act appeared coordinated and organized.
The ruling also cites concerns about pressure allegedly exerted on Djillali Benatia to implicate himself. The report notes that this claim lacks corroborating evidence, including references to recordings or testimonies from UCO agents who conducted the interview and indicates that the interview took place with the magistrate’s permission and without objections, with the involvement of Algeria’s lawyer Adrián Fernández.
The defense lawyers also challenged the annulment as the jury accepted Muguruza’s statement before the Civil Guard. The TSJA noted that defense counsel could request the removal of documents from the file presented to the jury, a point considered in the case’s procedural history.
Another cited issue was the alleged lack of motivation in the jury’s verdict. The court observed that the reasoning set out in the jury decision illustrated, in detail yet concisely, the integrity of the evidence. The Presiding Judge was described as performing his function by enhancing and integrating the legal basis of the decision under appeal.
Nieva’s defense also argued that, based on Benatia’s testimony at the investigation stage, the appellant could not be shown to have ordered Ardines’s death, and they contended that the verdict should align with the other defendants who were convicted. The prosecution response highlighted that there was sufficient evidence showing the defendants had agreed to ambush Ardines, resulting in severe injury and his immediate death, carried out under the direction of the individuals charged as organizers of the action. The outcome, as described by the court, reflected the participants’ agreement and execution of the plan.
Regarding the objections raised by Muguruza, Benatia, and Kelii, who claimed procedural shortcomings in Nieva’s resources, the court maintained that the measures taken were valid. The sentence thus confirmed twenty-two years in prison for the instigators and assassins and twenty years for the intermediary involved in the process.