The Seville trial began with the first two hearings concerning eight soldiers linked to the death of Mallorcan legionnaire Alejandro Jiménez Cruz, who died on March 25, 2019 after a training incident in the Alicante maneuvering area. The defense lines contended that the death resulted from a bouncing bullet and presented their client as not having fired. Sergeant Saúl Guil, for whom prosecutors seek a seven-year sentence, asserted that he did not shoot. The captain in command, Antonio Cabello, told reporters that the wound described by the authorities was not a direct hit, a claim echoed by the prosecutor who faces five years in prison and who backed the same conclusion. A lieutenant who supervised the maneuver could not remember the exact platoon positions, though he confirmed he did not fire during the exercise. A second platoon lieutenant corroborated that neither he nor his NCOs discharged their weapons, and stressed that measures were taken to prevent side fire and ricochets. The remaining four defendants said they could not recall whether the sergeant fired at any point.
The defendants’ statements did little to illuminate the case. Several witnesses altered their accounts since their initial Civil Guard testimony, and others made conflicting remarks. Consequently, the legal process set for the following week, featuring forensics, investigators, and ballistics experts from the Civil Guard, is expected to be pivotal in determining whether Alejandro Jiménez was struck by direct gunfire from the sergeant’s rifle, as the platoon report suggested.
The trial opened on Tuesday with the sergeant appearing before the court. His defense asked for the annulment of certain reports on grounds that the sergeant testified after the expert analyses and that the chain of custody had been violated. Those requests were refused. Saúl Guil admitted discharging his weapon during the exercise, contradicting his earlier Civil Guard statement, but claimed the discharge occurred after the exercise had ended and the scenario had shifted to a new mountain environment. He also claimed that he observed the lieutenants of both platoons firing as well.
Speaking to the prosecutors with a defiant tone, he denied having fired at his own men as a joke and dismissed the Civil Guard experts’ findings as false. He suggested that the fatal bullet might be a ricochet rather than a direct hit.
Captain Antonio Cabello later stated that he was not in the maneuvering area at the time of the incident. The following day he re-enacted the events before the Civil Guards arrived and ordered the debris cleared from the ground. He maintained the backlash theory and stressed that he had previously seen gunshot wounds, arguing that the wound observed in Alejandro Jiménez did not correspond to a direct shot.
The commander of Alejandro’s detachment, a lieutenant, reiterated that he did not operate his weapon during the entire exercise. His role was to monitor positions and correct them, and when asked about the sergeant and soldiers’ locations, he admitted that he could not recall the exact configuration.
Wednesday’s session began with a new statement from the other platoon lieutenant, now promoted to captain, who emphasized that his unit controlled its members to prevent shots from the side and thus avoid ricochets reaching Alejandro Jiménez’s group. The remaining defendants, including a corporal and three soldiers, contradicted some earlier statements and admitted following the captain’s orders to reposition during the reconstruction and to clear the ground compartments. None could recall the sergeant firing a weapon during the exercise.
Forensic experts, who concluded that the bullet originated from the petty officer’s rifle, and ballistics specialists from the plainclothes police and the Civil Guard Ballistics Laboratory are expected to testify in the coming week. Their analysis is central to resolving whether the injury resulted from direct fire or another mechanism during the training operation.