A lawyer in the ‘Barbate case’ challenges the judge for wearing a Civil Guard bracelet

The lawyer of one of the six imprisoned for the Barbate casein which the murder of two civil guards is being investigated when they were hit by a drug boat on February 9 in the port of this Cadiz town, has challenged the judge investigating the case, María Eulalia Chanfreut Rodríguez, for wearing a bracelet from the Civil Guard during the taking of statements as witnesses by agents of the armed Institute, as announced The Diario de Cádiz and EL PAÍS has confirmed. The lawyer announced verbally on Monday, during the practice of the procedure, that he was going to ask that the judge be removed considering that this fact represents “a clear breach of impartiality”, since the Civil Guard is part of the procedure in both the investigation ―it is agents of the armed Institute who carry out the investigations―, as in the accusation ―several professional associations of civil guards have appeared in the case―, and because the victims themselves were agents of this police force. The lawyer requested at that time that the justice administration lawyer draw up a record of the incident.

The lawyer Rafael Jiménez de Vicuña, who represents David GN, highlights in his writing that the fact that the magistrate used this accessory “with the flag of Spain, the shield of the Civil Guard and the acronyms of three bodies of the Civil Guard , these are: UAR – GAR – CAE [correspondientes a Unidad de Acción Rural, Grupo de Acción Rápida y Centro de Adiestramientos Especiales]” represents “unacceptable complicity.” “It is not necessary to indicate, since given the media coverage of this case it has been notable, that one of the deceased belonged to the GAR, and that both the judicial police, as well as private accusations, and the majority of the witnesses are civil guards” , picks up the lawyer. The deceased agents were David Pérez, 43 years old, assigned to this unit, and Miguel Ángel González, from the Group of Underwater Activities Specialists (GEAS).

The lawyer explains in his brief that the judge, who was wearing an elbow-length shirt, wore the bracelet while taking a statement from an agent who was wearing “the same bracelet.” “That the civil guard wears the bracelet and the symbols of the body to which he belongs is not at all reprehensible, on the contrary, it is a sign of pride and camaraderie, but that the instructor does so in the act of her duties and with the circumstances explained.” , evidence by displaying such symbols, a completely out of place closeness or sympathy that prevents the perception of neutrality and impartiality,” he adds. “Wear the symbol of the civil guard and the GAR group for the Investigator, guarantor of the rights of those investigated and of effective judicial protection, […] “It shows a direct or indirect interest, the result of, if not a friendship, a similar complicity and closeness that is incompatible and contrary to the required neutrality and impartiality,” he emphasizes.

In his brief, the lawyer emphasizes that the procedure in which the magistrate wore the bracelet was the taking of a statement from an agent who was being asked about alleged attacks suffered by the detainees during their arrest, facts that several defenses have requested that they be investigated and that they have not been attended to by the Court of First Instance and Instruction number 1 of Barbate, in charge of the case. The lawyer emphasizes that some of the agents who participated in the arrest of his client are, precisely, members of the GAR and that, in addition, the judge is aware that they had suffered injuries “as a result of physical attacks” because those investigated themselves did so. they denounced during their first judicial statement, on February 12.

Once this petition is presented, the rest of the defenses have a period of time to join, and the magistrate, who is assigned to reinforce the court and who instructed the case from the beginning, will have to decide whether to withdraw or reject the petition. . In the event that she rejects it, it will be the Provincial Court of Cádiz who must decide on the defense claim, according to legal sources.

This case took a turn after a Civil Guard report incorporated into the summary on May 7 exempted the first six arrested and imprisoned on the grounds that they were not the ones on board the drug boat that hit the patrol boat in which the men were traveling. murdered agents and four colleagues who were injured. The first arrested have been in provisional prison since February and the court has so far rejected the release of three of them, even though they are no longer accused of the death of the agents. The judge’s argument, supported by the Prosecutor’s Office, is that they are still being investigated for other serious crimes, smuggling committed within a criminal organization and resistance to law enforcement agents.

_