In August 2018, the case of the Llanes councillor Javier Ardines drew intense scrutiny as four individuals faced murder charges. The Asturias High Court of Justice previously handed sentences of 22 years for the instigator and two principal perpetrators, and 20 years for a key intermediary. The Supreme Court of Spain has now confirmed these verdicts, rejecting the appeals filed by the four convicts and upholding the Asturias TSJ decision that aligned with the Oviedo Provincial Court jury’s findings. The convictions, including the longer terms for the leaders and the shorter term for the intermediary, stand as final in this matter.
The decision was communicated to the Asturias High Court of Justice and the Oviedo Provincial Court on Thursday and formally served to the parties involved. The complete sentence, together with its legal reasoning, will be released in the coming days and will explain the grounds for dismissing the defenses’ objections.
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court moved ahead with its ruling while preparing for a 22-day session to address the further appeals submitted by the four convicted individuals in relation to the Ardines case. The tragedy unfolded on the morning of August 16, 2018. The Oviedo Provincial Court had earlier addressed detention for three defendants, Pedro Luis Nieva, Djilali Benatia, and Jesus Muguruza, with proceedings dating back to February 2019. In this matter, legal provisions allow for the possibility that preventive detention extends the sentence even if a final verdict has not yet been issued. The case also involved Maamar Kelii, who was detained after extradition from Switzerland, and who, along with Nieva, Benatia, and Muguruza, received prison terms of 22 years for Nieva, Benatia, and Kelii, and 20 years for Muguruza.
retrial
The Supreme Court addressed numerous points raised by the defense, some of which challenged the legitimacy of the trial based on the use of testimony from Jesús Muguruza obtained before the Civil Guard and later reconsidered by higher courts. The Asturias court maintained that the nullification of Muguruza’s earlier declaration did not invalidate the subsequent proceedings, noting that investigators could reach similar conclusions through other evidence and methods.
The defense also argued that wiretaps exposed during the investigation were improperly conducted or insufficiently overseen by the judiciary. They contended that such measures pressured Benatia into a confession that was later contested, and that the initial isolation of the defendants at certain stages of the investigation compromised due process. The court evaluated these arguments and found that the overall trial preserved due process and did not require a retrial.
The Part Two ruling clarifies that Benatia and Kelii, both of Algerian origin, acted on the instruction of Nieva, who was connected by marriage to Ardines’s wife. Ardines and Nieva’s partner had a long-standing relationship spanning decades. Muguruza played a role in facilitating contact with the alleged hitmen, a sequence that was ultimately validated by the full court as consistent with the evidence presented. The court’s decision stands as a decisive resolution of the factual and legal questions surrounding the case.