The Ceuta Prosecutor’s Office has indicated that the National Court is the competent authority to investigate the alleged responsibility of the Government delegate, Miguel Ángel Pérez Triano, in the migration crisis, specifically whether “the decisions or omissions made could have influenced the development of the events.”
This was stated in a document, accessed by Europa Press, in which it was supported that the Ceuta courts should refer to the National Court, which is handling the main case on the massive entry of immigrants, the proceedings opened regarding Pérez Triano’s actions following complaints from Manos Limpias and Hazte Oír.
Days before the Ceuta courts finally recused themselves, the Public Ministry emphasized that “the decisions or omissions made in Ceuta could have influenced the development of the events, the exposure to risk of the people who entered by swimming, and the production or aggravation of the harmful outcomes.”
“The investigation of the conduct of the Government delegate requires jointly examining the circumstances in which the massive entry of people by swimming occurred, the information available to the Spanish authorities, the forecasts and measures adopted before the arrival of the people to the coast of Ceuta, the organization of surveillance, containment, aid, and reception devices, the orders, instructions, or decisions issued by the competent authorities, the possible existence of relevant omissions in prevention, aid, or protection,” it stated.
According to it, the complaints filed against Pérez Triano point to his “possible responsibility” for the decisions made, the instructions given, the organization of security and reception devices, the management of the created situation, and the “alleged omission of measures” that, it added, “could have been necessary to prevent or avoid the harmful outcome.”
“Interdependence of behaviors”
The Prosecutor’s Office advocated investigating in the same courts, on one hand, “the actions of those who promoted or facilitated the massive entry” which, in its view, “constitutes the initial premise of the sequence.” And, on the other hand, “the actions of the Spanish authorities, including that of the Government delegate,” which “is part of the institutional response to that same event and may be relevant to determine whether the risk was known, foreseeable, avoidable, or susceptible to aggravation.”
In its opinion, although the reported behaviors may have occurred “at different times and places,” all of them “occur over the same event,” so it is not, it argued, “isolated or independent acts,” but “actions that present a unity of context.”
And this connection – it expressed – “is not limited to the identity of the investigated persons, but extends to the unity of the historical fact, the community of evidence, and the interdependence of behaviors.”
Therefore, it argued that separate investigation “could prevent adequately assessing the entire operational and institutional mechanism, produce duplication of proceedings, and generate contradictory resolutions on essential issues such as the foreseeability of the risk.”
