The lawyer of one of the six imprisoned individuals in the Barbate case, which involves the investigation of the murder of two Civil Guard officers who were run over by a narco-boat on February 9 in the port of this Cadiz town, has challenged the judge overseeing the case, María Eulalia Chanfreut Rodríguez, for wearing a Civil Guard bracelet during the testimony of agents of the armed institute, as reported by El Diario de Cádiz and confirmed by EL PAÍS. The lawyer announced verbally on Monday, during the proceedings, that he was going to request the removal of the judge, considering this act to be a “clear breach of impartiality”, as the Civil Guard is involved in both the investigation – with agents conducting the inquiries – and the accusation – several professional associations of Civil Guards have joined the case – and because the victims themselves were agents of this police force. The lawyer requested at that moment that the court clerk record the incident.
The lawyer Rafael Jiménez de Vicuña, representing David G. N., points out in his written statement that the fact that the judge wore this accessory “with the Spanish flag, the shield of the Civil Guard, and the initials of three units of the Civil Guard, these being: UAR – GAR – CAE [corresponding to the Rural Action Unit, Rapid Action Group, and Special Training Center]” constitutes an “unacceptable complicity”. He mentions that one of the deceased officers belonged to the GAR and that most of the witnesses, the police in charge, and the victims are all Civil Guards, emphasizing the close relationship this symbol creates, impeding neutrality and impartiality perception.
In his document, the lawyer emphasizes that the incident took place during the questioning of an agent who was being asked about alleged aggressions suffered by the detainees during their arrest, a matter that several defenses have requested to investigate but have been ignored by the Court of First Instance and Preliminary Investigation Number 1 of Barbate. Some of the agents who participated in his client’s arrest are members of the GAR, and the judge is aware that they had suffered injuries “as a result of physical aggression” because the detainees themselves reported this during their initial judicial statements on February 12.
Once this request is submitted, the other defenses have a deadline to join, and the judge, who is currently assigned to reinforce the court and has been handling the case from the beginning, will have to decide whether to step aside or reject the request. If she rejects it, it will be the Provincial Court of Cadiz that will decide on the defense’s claim, according to legal sources. This case took a turn when a report from the Civil Guard added to the case file on May 7 exonerated the first six detainees and imprisoned individuals, considering that they were not the ones on board the narco-boat that collided with the patrol boat carrying the murdered officers and four wounded colleagues. The initial detainees have been in provisional custody since February, and the court has rejected the release of three of them, even though they are no longer accused of the agents’ deaths.
The argument by the judge, supported by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, is that they are still under investigation for other serious crimes, such as smuggling within a criminal organization and resistance to authority.
