Ex-Government Delegate and Ex-Ceuta Vice-President on ‘Arbitrary’ Deportation of Children in Morocco

Section VI of the Provincial Court of Cádiz, located in Ceuta, dismissed the recent appeals of the former delegate of the socialist government, Salvadora Mateos, and the former vice-president of the autonomous city, Mabel Deu (PP), to avoid prosecution for “crude”. In August 2021, the expulsion and “arbitrary” transfer of 55 unaccompanied migrant children to Morocco. Both will have to be the alleged material author and necessary employee of the alleged crime of administrative uncertainty.

The order, which ends the criminal investigation launched two and a half years ago by the L’Scola association with a complaint to the public prosecutor’s office in Granada, considers the “correct” interpretation, which the head of the court appreciated the “rational guidelines”. of the criminal act, pursuant to Ceuta Instruction 2, issued in his summary indictment order dated September 2.

Since the Supreme Court had already approved the actions of Mateos and Deu through litigious-administrative channels, the Court of Second Instance did not correct it in order to have access to the full content of elDiario.es to the investigating magistrate who evaluates it. that by “their arbitrary conduct” the two “absolutely neglected their duty to protect vulnerable minors” who arrived in the city as part of the May 2021 migration crisis.

For the judge, they put “their physical and moral integrity” at risk and caused “a materially unjust result, without any justification, not even a special situation, because they did not even prove that, given the availability of Morocco. Minors will be accepted, arbitration mechanisms will be in place to expedite legal procedures.”

The prosecutor’s office requests a 12-year disqualification

The prosecution is asking that Matheos (fired by the Council of Ministers in October 2022 and retired) and Deu (who was not included in the PP list last May and returned to teaching) be sentenced to 12 years of special disqualification. Exercising “elective positions” or “public functions” at the state, regional or local level. Also, the loss of “dignities related to the public positions held by them” and at the same time using the right to passive vote.

In the light of the case carried out, the investigating magistrate concluded that until the justice stopped them and returned the children for three days “by common consent in gross and flagrant violation of Article 39 of the Spanish Constitution, the organic law of the legal protection of minors. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the 2007 Agreement between Spain and Morocco on the Protection and Agreed Return of Unaccompanied Minors.

In addition, “they ignored the ban on collective repatriation and completely disregarded administrative procedures, particularly the juvenile hearing and the right to legal aid and an interpreter, as well as the prosecutor’s preliminary review process.” Thus, “what happened is that it went straight into the enforcement phase, which was the purpose,” the judge said.

Mateos unsuccessfully argued in his appeal that there was no “willfulness” in his conduct, much less “aggravated fraud” or “full awareness of the hypothetical illegal act.” Also that the verbal and written objections that Ceuta’s head of the minors area, Tony Palomo, expressed against the express return, never reached their ears. He also insisted that “the voluntary return of minors was carried out under the protection of the 2007 agreement, after weighing their best interests and after assessment by the competent authority”.

Dew, in turn, appealed, arguing that he had only signed resolutions that were “merely formal and not decisive” and that he was acting in response to “a clear and complete mandate from the Secretary of State for Security” at the Home Office. , who was “begging” to start the expulsion. Earlier. Nor does he agree that “manifest, patent, flagrant and resounding illegality” can be imputed to him.

Both the prosecution and the private prosecution objected to both statements, and the court concluded that at this stage of the proceedings it was not for it to decide the different points proposed by the defense.

“It is not possible,” concludes the order, “to appeal the decision to continue to apply the rules of the summary procedure, and even more so if it ended with a presumed free release, which would result in the effect of recidivism. , which means that “the facts contained in the factual report do not fit into the Penal Code, or there is no evidence to support them, which is unfounded in the case and at this time.”

Source: El Diario

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *