Fundamental rights

In this case, an individual under investigation was detained within preliminary proceedings for an alleged organization dedicated to hashish trafficking from Ceuta to the mainland. According to the investigation, there was a kind of "security structure " formed by civil guards stationed at the Port of Ceuta, who would facilitate the operation in exchange for money. Before the court appearance where the decision on provisional imprisonment was to be made, the court handed him a document called "summary of charges", supposedly to inform him of the "essential elements" of the case, although the proceedings were secret. This summary attributed criminal offenses of organized crime, against public health, and bribery to him, stating that there were indications from intercepted and recorded conversations, for example, that he had received 5,000 euros for a past action and that there was an agreed price of 120,000 euros to be distributed.

During the appearance, the defense requested access to specific proceedings in order to discuss the deprivation of liberty deprivation of liberty , especially to those conversations cited as a key clue. The investigating judge denied it. However, the decision was made to remand in custody with no bail was ordered, based on indications of involvement and risks such as flight, repeat offenses, and destruction or concealment of evidence. The individual under investigation appealed, requesting access to the proceedings for a full defense. nullity of appearance and of the detention order, because he understood that without access to those essential elements (especially the conversations) he could not defend himself properly. Both the court and the National Court maintained the detention, considering the "broad summary" provided to be sufficient.

Finally, the Constitutional Court ruled in his favor , recalling that, even if there is secrecy in the proceedings, that does not eliminate the right to access the essential elements to challenge a deprivation of liberty, and that access must be real and effective , not just a generic reference. Here, since the intercepted conversation was the main evidence to order the detention, denying its recording or transcription prevented an effective defense and violated the rights to freedom and defense.

In claims arising from criminal acts, our lawyers can provide you with the appropriate advice and exercise the defense of your interests