The Military Court of Supreme Justice in the Territorial Service (TS) addressed the trial of defendants in a case connected to the death of a legionnaire during a live-fire training exercise on March 25, 2019. The individual identified was a 22-year-old legionnaire named Alexander Jimenez, whose death set in motion a chain of legal proceedings within the military justice system.
According to the information accessible to EFE, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by the legionnaires’ family lawyer against the decision of the Second Regional Military Court. That court had concluded that the trial should proceed before a regular criminal court rather than a military one, thereby determining the jurisdiction for the case against the accused.
In August 2020, the Regional Military Court No. 23, based in Almería, pressed forward with charges against a sergeant believed to have caused the fatal shot that claimed the life of the army personnel stationed in Viator, Almería. The sergeant faced accusations of crimes against the efficiency of the service as well as improper use of power and administration of justice, framed as a death resulting from gross negligence.
Additional defendants included a captain implicated in cover-up and disobedience, a lieutenant charged with offenses affecting the efficiency of the service, violations of command duties, concealment, and disobedience, and another lieutenant accused of crimes against service efficiency and disloyalty. A corporal and three soldiers were added to the list for cover-up, with one of the soldiers facing an extra charge of insulting a comrade.
By December of the same year, the oral trial proceeded against these eight soldiers. A few days later, the deceased’s family submitted a brief to the Second Regional Military Court requesting “special clarification under the concept of lack of jurisdiction.” The core question centered on whether there was sufficient evidence to treat the death as an intentional act, a requirement that would shape the entire framing of the case within the Military Penal Code.
The proceedings indicated that the event could be interpreted as a deliberate act, leading observers to question whether it met the threshold for willful manslaughter or murder. The analysis carried out by the Military Court emphasized that the charges must be evaluated within the proper legal framework, and that the court should avoid prematurely concluding the nature of the act before the evidence had been fully considered in public proceedings.
The Supreme Court noted that the procedural representation by the defense was aimed at a timely determination of whether fraud or irregularities affected the case, and at ensuring that the actions of the sergeant could be categorized as lawful acts or as deliberate manslaughter, depending on the evidence presented. The high court argued that the issue deserved an oral examination, with conclusions drawn from the evidence and the right to a transparent and argumentative process, rather than a preemptive ruling by a lower court that might prejudge the outcome.
If it is legally established that the death of legionnaire Don Alejandro Jiménez Cruz constitutes willful manslaughter or murder, the Supreme Court indicated that any consideration of pardons or jurisdiction should be appropriately handled within the proper official framework. Yet the court ultimately maintained that the reasoning of the Second Regional Military Court was sound, rejecting claims that the court had prematurely pronounced its decision. The deeper question remained whether the matter could be resolved more effectively through a full oral debate that respects the principles of publicity, hearing, and contestation, as permitted by law.
In this sense, the Court of Cassation underscored that whatever the alleged fraud might be, the determination must come from a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented during the oral trial, guided by the principles of publicity, direct examination, and cross-examination. The conclusion drawn was that the appropriate evidentiary tools and the procedural rights available during the public trial should govern how the case is resolved, ensuring due process and a credible assessment of the facts involved in the tragedy.