The Military Chamber of the Supreme Court has upheld a sanction against a Civil Guard officer who internally reported "false" irregularities in the service that the Civil Guard provides at the Lanzarote airport.
According to the ruling, the officer was sanctioned with a one-month suspension from employment after sending a letter to the Director-General of the Civil Guard in March 2017, in which he accused the head of the Costa Teguise Company of events that he described as "very serious disciplinary offenses" and "a serious offense." In the same letter, he requested that a disciplinary file be opened and that precautionary measures be taken.
This officer was not stationed in Lanzarote but claimed to have knowledge of the events through documentation that "had been provided to him by members of the AUGC in Lanzarote."
Specifically, this officer accused the head of the Costa Teguise Company of ordering the "violation" of the Air Safety Law, "by ordering the heads of the Main Posts of Tías, Costa Teguise, and San Bartolomé" to assign "service" to officers to access "critical and/or restricted areas of the Lanzarote airport without having the airport accreditation required by the PNS," the National Civil Aviation Security Program.
In addition to ensuring that the civil guards did not possess the port accreditation, he stated that they also did not access these areas "using the access formula with accredited accompaniment," "because with the limited personnel stationed at the Airport Security Detachment, it cannot be ensured that they can always be accompanied, without forgetting that this personnel must continue to perform their usual tasks in the security filters."
He also stated that this "lack of accreditation" implied "a lack of training on elementary aspects of airport security and on unique elements of the Lanzarote airport."
In his letter, he also pointed out that the officers were being made to serve "with a long gun model that most of them (if not all) have never used in shooting practices" and about which they "do not" have "the basic notions of use and safety." And he insisted that all of this had been ordered by the captain in charge of the Costa Teguise company, "with knowledge" that the personnel accessing the restricted areas were doing so "in violation of port security regulations."
Proven Facts
These assertions were considered "false" by the Armed Institute, which, in July 2018, issued a resolution imposing a sanction on the officer. However, he appealed the sanction, which led to a ruling by the Justice Chamber of the Central Military Court in June 2020.
In that judicial ruling, the officer's appeal was dismissed, as what he had reported was not considered proven. And, as stated, the officers were not providing service in the "restricted area" of the airport and only accessed it to go to the armory, "notifying the guard on duty beforehand."
The ruling considered it proven that the provision of services at the Lanzarote airport by officers from San Bartolomé, Tías, and Costa Teguise was ordered "with the main mission of preventing terrorist attacks" after "the alert level had been raised" following the attacks in Paris in November 2015 and those in Brussels in April 2016. However, the order stated that "in no case" would the service be carried out past the security filters "except for a request for assistance from the Civil Guard Security Unit at the Airport."
Also, regarding the weaponry, it was established that it would consist of "regulation handgun, handcuffs, bulletproof vest, and long gun."
Then, "to avoid continuous displacements of the patrols" to the Costa Teguise barracks, which was the "location of those long guns," the Command of Las Palmas authorized the change of location of the same, "so that they would be guarded in a room immediately adjacent to the security filter of Terminal 1 of the airport, a place that was deemed to have the necessary security."
Specifically, these armories were located "inside the Civil Guard Filter Office," located "just after accessing from the 'controlled access zone' to the 'restricted access zone,' and therefore it is stated that the reinforcement officers accessed it, but only to "collect" the weapons "at the beginning of the service" and "to leave them again in the armory" after it ended.
"They did not remain in the restricted area but immediately returned to the public area where they provided service," it was considered proven in the ruling, where it was also indicated that the access "was carried out directly through a side, lifting a tensioner, notifying beforehand - as they did not have enabling accreditation to access the restricted area - the guard on duty among those assigned to the airport section."
In addition, it was highlighted that "at no time was any objection raised to this procedure by the Aena officials at the Lanzarote airport."
Regarding the lack of training on the use of long guns that was reported, it was pointed out that the captain in charge of the Costa Teguise Company sent the commanders of the posts involved in providing the resource service at the airport the "official weapon manual," "ordering that it be explained and made known in the daily academies to all personnel under their charge." In this regard, the chamber considered that it "could not" be proven that all personnel received theoretical instruction on the use of the weapon," but it did consider as such that "the members of the patrols did not do shooting practices with long guns in either 2016 or 2017, due to the lack of a certified shooting range for long guns in Lanzarote."
A "mendacious" conduct
This ruling was also appealed by the officer who reported the events, who sought to be exonerated, alleging, among other things, that "the lack of adjustment to reality of the statements made has not been proven." He also claimed that a "biased interpretation" of his letter had been made and disputed that he had stated that the guards were providing service in the restricted security area of the airport, stating that he only denounced "the access to it."
However, the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court has also rejected his claim, ratifying the facts proven by the trial court, which considers that they reveal the "mendacious conduct" of the officer. "It is clear, in the opinion of the chamber, that the appellant, by lying in the disciplinary report he issued, falsified reality and did so with the aim of achieving his purpose that, in response to what he formulated based on those falsehoods, disciplinary actions, or of another nature, be initiated against the captain to whom a series of unlawful actions were mendaciously attributed in that report," the chamber concludes, thus confirming the sanction imposed on him.
