Operation Black Shadow: one of the accused at liberty for not being sufficiently informed of the case

The National Court has released an alleged member of a network to which the introduction of 57 tons of cocaine from the province of Cádiz is attributed, considering that his defense rights were violated by not sufficiently informing him of the "evidence" that determined his entry into prison. 

He is an investigated person in the case under summary secrecy derived from operation Black Shadow, which involved the dismantling of a logistical support organization for drug trafficking, with 105 detainees in two phases: the first culminated in July last year in the Canary Islands and the second ended in Andalusia in November.

The operation, which involved an attack on the largest distribution and asset laundering center in Campo de Gibraltar, resulted in the seizure of 10,400 kilos of cocaine, 70 vehicles, 30 vessels, six properties, three firearms, multiple bank accounts, two 'hexacopters' or megadrones, more than 800,000 euros and more than 150 mobile phones.

The third section of the Criminal Chamber of the National Court has now analyzed the appeal filed by lawyer Juan Gonzalo Ospina on behalf of one of those detainees against the decision of judge María Tardón, the investigating judge of the case, to send him to provisional prison.

The lawyer denounced before the Chamber the violation of his client's rights, Juan Pedro F., alias Zumbi, for not having had sufficient knowledge of the case -which was under summary secrecy- when the hearing was held to decide his entry into prison.

This investigated person, according to the order to which EFE had access this Monday, is considered a coordinator of the network. Along with others, he would be in charge of guaranteeing the entry of drug-laden vessels through the mouth of the Guadalquivir, providing them with fuel and controlling police patrol boats.

When analyzing his appeal, the court admits that the magistrate did detail "the specific participation of this investigated person" in the events, "but not the content of the evidence that should have determined the subsequent adoption of the precautionary measure of provisional prison, which were presented in a generic and imprecise manner."

According to the order, it did not detail the result of the police surveillance that would prove the role of the investigated person, nor was he provided with a summary of the transcription of the phone taps or information about with whom he held the conversations or the date of them.

Therefore, the Chamber has decreed the release of this investigated person upon appreciating "violation of the right to defense in its aspect of the right to access judicial proceedings, as well as the right to personal liberty."

Nevertheless, it has imposed on him the obligation to appear every fifteen days before the court, the prohibition from leaving the country without judicial authorization, the withdrawal of his passport, and the obligation to communicate any change of address or telephone.

In its order, the Chamber explains that the court must operate "with criteria of proportionality and rationality" and reconcile the summary secrecy with "an accessibility" to the case for the investigated person to "that which is essential, in the sense of substantial, fundamental or elemental, for an adequate exercise of his defense against the deprivation of liberty, always upon prior request" of his lawyer.

To adopt its decision, the Chamber has taken into account a recent ruling by the Constitutional Court, of February 27, which established that the investigated person in a criminal case under secrecy has the right to know the content of the essential evidence that supports his entry into provisional prison.