Rafael Amargo, a prominent dancer, sought release through his lawyer, arguing that keeping him detained for security reasons infringed his fundamental rights. The plea arrived at the Provincial Court shortly after the artist had embarked on a weeklong hunger strike, with the claim that there was no danger of flight given the circumstances.
Ana Isabel Peña, representing Amargo, stated that she had requested the artist’s freedom because the detention appeared to violate fundamental rights so severely that even the State Court acknowledged this in the most recent two hearings. She noted that the orders denying freedom echoed the same point without variance.
Peña insisted that the law should prevail and that Amargo would be released, describing his current situation as abnormal: at court appearances he seemed effectively imprisoned for a crime he had not yet been tried for, a condition suggesting no real risk of flight but no formal trial either. This was highlighted again in reference to proceedings postponed to June 7, 2023, when the defendant elected to waive his attorney at the time of the hearing.
In remarks reported to EFE, the lawyer explained that Amargo began his hunger strike on January 4 to protest what he viewed as an unfair treatment. The protest continued through January 9, at which point his health deteriorated after contracting Covid-19 and losing a significant amount of weight.
The Madrid District Court issued the order placing Amargo in prison on November 3, a decision that kept him detained until the April hearing. The move followed concerns raised by the prosecutor about the risk of flight and repeated violations of the requirement to sign in every 15 days.
On November 29, the court rejected Amargo’s objection and confirmed the decision to hold him until the April hearing, where he would face charges related to drug distribution. The ruling detailed deficiencies in his compliance with the signing obligation, noting it was done only at a minimal frequency and without medical justification, and that the defendant had not provided a convincing reason for such behavior.
During this period, Amargo changed counsel due to disagreements with the former attorney and retained Ana Isabel Peña, who previously represented another high-profile defendant, César Román of Cachopo. The ongoing legal proceedings drew attention to the broader context of the case and the pressures surrounding the dancer’s ongoing legal battles.
Rafael Amargo’s trial was scheduled for April 8, 10, 11, and 12 in 2024. The timing followed a restraining order issued on June 7, connected to a separate matter involving theater producer Eduardo de Santos, who likewise stepped away from his own counsel as the case evolved.
Eduardo de Santos, a co-defendant, and Manuel Ángel Batista León, described as a partner in Amargo’s circle, faced accusations of participating in a drug trafficking operation. Prosecutors alleged that methamphetamine and other drugs were trafficked from Amargo’s residence as part of the alleged network. The defendants were expected to confront the charges at the forthcoming hearings, amid arguments over the extent of involvement and the evidentiary support for the allegations.
As the April hearings approached, prosecutors sought lengthy prison sentences: nine years for Amargo and the producer, and six years for the other defendant. The court’s focus remained on the balance between public safety interests and the defendants’ rights to a fair process, including proper court appearances and compliance with conditions set by the judiciary.
Throughout the process, the case drew scrutiny from media outlets and observers who weighed in on the potential implications for the arts community and for high-profile Spanish entertainment figures facing legal scrutiny. The proceedings underscored the tension between artistic reputation, personal liberties, and the enduring demands of the criminal justice system, especially in cases involving alleged drug trafficking and related offenses. The participants and their legal teams prepared for further developments as the court system navigated the complex ethical and legal dimensions of the accusations, ensuring that due process remained central to the proceedings. (EFE attribution)