The trial before the 23rd High Criminal Court of Madrid continues to unfold, focusing on eighty-two ultras linked to Atletico de Madrid and Deportivo de La Coruña, stemming from clashes that erupted around the Vicente Calderon stadium on November 30, 2014. What began as a volatile incident involving rival fans has grown into a detailed legal examination of organized supporters, their motives, and the sequence of events that led to injuries and heightened tensions on match day.
The central issue in the case lies in understanding why the incident escalated and how the various parties were implicated. The court has already reviewed the initial file and the material surrounding the death of a Deportivo supporter, the case that had previously been archived by the court before the Provincial Court needed to decide further. The proceedings seek to determine accountability for the violence and to establish the factual record of what happened in the hours surrounding the stadium that day.
At the outset of the trial, seventy of the eighty-two defendants reached a settlement through the prosecutor’s negotiation. The proposed sentences ranged from nine to thirty-one months on interim terms, while ten defendants did not accept any agreement, and another did not appear at the hearing. The dynamics of the negotiations reveal the court’s effort to resolve aspects of the case efficiently, even as the larger questions about organization, ideology, and responsibility remained contested.
During Monday’s hearing, ten police officers testified, including a supervisor from the Information group who specializes in extremism. According to these witnesses, officers tracked the ultras’ movements, yet they did not perceive an immediate threat comparable to prior incidents. They noted that the Atlético supporters were gathering near the stadium for a pre-match gathering and anticipated that thirty to forty members of the Riazor Blues would travel from La Coruña, though specifics about the attendees were not fully detailed at that moment.
Following the altercation, arrests and identifications were carried out. Investigators examined the possible motives of those involved and concluded that the confrontation appeared to be a “harmonious meeting,” with some Galician ultras from the Riazor Blues responding to Athletic Club fans with hostile signals in their messages, including references to violence and the use of far-right symbols such as swastikas in some communications.
The agents emphasized that the ideological divide between the groups was a key element of the case. They described the adherents of the Riazor Blues as anti-fascist and their opponents as leaning toward far-right positions, a characterization that underscored the broader political undertones of the clashes. This framing influenced how investigators assessed confrontations and predicted potential flashpoints for future events.
The same officer acknowledged answering numerous questions from defense attorneys about security procedures and the process of identifying those accused. He stated that he and his team had repeatedly identified individuals in this case, noting that his familiarity with some suspects extended over fourteen years due to longstanding involvement in related groups.
There were discussions about the quality of video evidence, with the Scientific Police admitting that one video did not meet the threshold for independent confirmation of its descriptions. Nevertheless, other videos and witness photographs supported the overall narrative of the events and helped triangulate the accounts of what occurred that day.
The judge acknowledged an error in the alleged victim’s identification: the person who fell into the Manzanares river was not Jimmy, the Dépor supporter who died, but another individual who did not lose his life. This clarification was a reminder of the challenges inherent in crowd-based incidents and the importance of precise identification in high-stakes investigations.
Regarding the geographic details put forward by the defense, the police reiterated that they had requested contact lists from the involved companies and that these data dumps had been provided in full on two occasions. The testimony suggested that all relevant information had been preserved within a robust storage framework to aid the court’s assessment of each defendant’s involvement.
Another point of discussion centered on a drawn schematic used to illustrate movements on the day of the incident. A mobility officer explained that the drawing was provided to the police to clarify the situation, while the trainer observed that his own description of events had become somewhat confusing in later testimony. He clarified that he never intended to offer specific guidance to agents but, at times, the evidence presented by the court reflected his timeline more clearly.
As the week continues, the hearing is set to resume on Tuesday and extend through the rest of the week with additional testimonies and references. The court remains focused on constructing a coherent narrative from competing accounts, determining culpability where warranted, and assessing the broader implications for football-related violence and crowd control.