Yassine Kanjaa, a suspected jihadist who committed a multiple attack in Algeciras (Cádiz) in January 2023, is trying to avoid his trial in the National Court at all costs. His lawyer argued in a session held on Thursday that the case should be transferred to the Provincial Court of Cádiz, where a jury can judge him, rather than being tried in the exceptional court that handles terrorism cases. The defense claims that Kanjaa’s psychological disorders make it incompatible for his actions to be considered as having a “terrorist” motive, and therefore, this type of crime should be ruled out. If this initiative is successful, it could lead to a possible reduction in the sentences. The Prosecutor’s Office, however, opposes this transfer and is seeking 50 years in prison for Kanjaa.
The Algeciras attack raises questions about the limits of terrorism crimes at the National Court: can an attack of this nature, committed by a man with mental health problems, be considered as being driven by his alleged jihadist affiliations with the aim of disrupting public peace? Or is it simply a result of his mental disorders? Depending on the interpretation in each individual case, the legal response varies significantly. In a ruling last year, the National Court expressed doubts about the “terrorist nature” of Kanjaa’s crime, acknowledging that his “psychotic illnesses” could influence the categorization of the attack as a jihadist act.
The National Court has decided, for now, that the case should remain within its jurisdiction, despite the defense’s attempts to have it moved to the Provincial Court of Cádiz. The investigating judge Joaquín Gadea concluded that, despite Kanjaa’s psychiatric problems, he acted with a “terrorist” intent inspired by jihadism. The judge suggested that Kanjaa’s mental health issues may affect his culpability if convicted, but not the classification of the crime as terrorist. The Prosecutor, Emilio Miró, asserts that Kanjaa underwent a rapid radicalization process before the attack in January 2023, which resulted in the murder of a sacristan and injuries to others. Miró argues that Kanjaa’s psychotic state did not completely impair his judgment, as evidenced by the organized and sequential nature of the attack.
All parties agree that the trial at the National Court will determine whether Kanjaa’s actions were driven by a “terrorist” motive. According to the Prosecutor, transferring the case out of this exceptional court would prevent the victims from proving this, as the terrorism charges would be dropped automatically. The defense argues that Kanjaa’s mental health condition affects the legal classification of the events, claiming that without the element of terrorism, the case should be moved to the Cádiz Court. They argue that denying this transfer would violate Kanjaa’s rights to be tried by the competent judge and to a fair trial.
The defense of Yassine Kanjaa continues to challenge his trial at the National Court, citing his mental health disorders as incompatible with a terrorist motive for the Algeciras attack. The legal debate surrounding this case highlights the complexities of determining the motivations behind such acts of violence and the impact of mental health on the criminal responsibility of the accused. The decision on whether the trial will remain in the National Court or be transferred to the Provincial Court of Cádiz will ultimately determine the outcome of Kanjaa’s case and the application of justice in cases involving terrorism and mental health issues.
