Rights and Rulings Surrounding Provisional Release in a Morocco-to-Spain Drug Ring Case

The Benidorm local police officer and two others, who had been detained since early February over their alleged ties to a drug trafficking network, were granted provisional release this past Thursday after the Alicante Court of Appeal overturned the prison orders due to the investigators’ lack of defense access. The police operation had involved the seizure of 250 kilograms of hashish in l’Alfàs del Pi, tied to a broader investigation spanning multiple jurisdictions.

The First Section of the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal filed by the defense teams of the three detainees, named Álvaro Vico Cortés and Monserrat Angulo Donado, and ordered their provisional freedom. The ruling concluded that the Investigating Court Number 1 in Benidorm, which had ordered remand on February 11, did not provide access to essential case materials needed to mount an effective defense or to challenge the legality of the detention. Practical access to the evidentiary record was deemed a constitutional right essential to a fair defense. This judgment aligns with established judicial standards that require defendants to be able to review key pieces of evidence used against them (constitutional right to defense) and to contest the legality of the custody measure (case law: Constitutional Court guidelines).

The Benidorm court did not disclose the full contents of the case because the file was under secret proceedings by a Málaga court handling ongoing diligences. Nevertheless, the constitutional framework holds that suspects must be able to inspect the core documents that inform the allegations against them, so as not to suffer indefensible legal prejudice (constitutional protections, European human rights considerations). The three men had been detained in Benidorm, Madrid, and l’Alfàs del Pi, together with three other individuals, including a trainee National Police officer who is the son of a Benidorm municipal officer. That officer, who was days away from taking an oath of office, remains in preventive detention, while another detainee is a municipal employee of l’Alfàs del Pi.

The National Police accuses the group of forming an organization involved in drug trafficking from Morocco for sale in Spain, with support from Moroccan authorities through the General Directorate of Security (DGSN). As part of the preventive measures, the three defendants must report to court every fifteen days, surrender their passports, and are barred from leaving Spain. These conditions are designed to balance public safety with the defendants’ right to defend themselves effectively, pending a full evidentiary review.

Fundamental rights

Defense lawyers for the released individuals argued that fundamental rights were violated by the inability to access the crucial documents and evidence in the police and judicial proceedings, specifically citing Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution and its guarantee of the right to defense, which was claimed to have been compromised. They also referred to an EU directive noting that the right to access essential case materials related to challenging detention cannot be restricted by the secrecy of the investigation. The constitutional perspective underscores that a proper balance must exist between investigative secrecy and the accused’s ability to challenge the measures taken against them (constitutional provisions and European human rights standards; sources: European directive and national constitutional jurisprudence).

According to a recent Constitutional Court ruling, lawyers should be granted access to documents that show signs of criminal activity justifying pretrial detention, those indicating the possibility that the suspect committed the crimes, and those that justify the purposes behind the restrictive measure. The Alicante Court of Appeal echoed this principle in its freedom-to-impede decision issued this week, emphasizing that such access is essential to ensure due process. The court also noted that when a case is under secret proceedings, the request to suspend secrecy must be weighed to allow the defense to assess the necessity of such a drastic measure. The decision marks a significant development in the scope of rights within Spain’s criminal process, potentially broadening the defense toolkit and aligning with European standards for justice (sources: Constitutional Court judgments; administrative notes from Alicante Court of Appeal).

The ruling adds that evaluating the necessity of provisional detention in a secret-file context should consider the possibility of partially lifting the secrecy for the specific defendant to challenge the lawfulness of the detention. This stance is presented as a contemporary addition to the catalog of justiciable rights that strengthen procedural guarantees, a policy shift described as aligned with European expectations and consistent with prior constitutional doctrine (reference: recent constitutional decisions; commentary from Alicante Court of Appeal).

Additionally, the document cites a prior Constitutional Court decision from last year reaffirming that secrecy cannot block access to proceedings deemed essential for challenging detention. It also notes that not having previously invoked this defense does not render the right invalid or unavailable in future challenges. This viewpoint reinforces the evolving understanding that the right to challenge pretrial detention remains active and capable of being exercised when new or clarifying circumstances arise (constitutional jurisprudence and Spanish constitutional updates).