Preventive detention, communicated and without bail for the three military commanders who are being investigated for the death of two soldiers on December 21 at the Cerro Muriano base, in Córdoba, during exercises. This is the request that the defense of the relatives of Miguel Ángel Jiménez, one of the victims, has made to the judge in charge of the case and that affects the captain, a lieutenant and a sergeant who were in command during the fateful day.
In the document, sent to the 21st Military Court of Seville competent for the investigation while it is confirmed by the Provincial Court, the lawyers justify their request as a measure to “safeguard” materials or documents that, otherwise, they point out, could disappear.
Let us remember that the deceased died from drowning in an artificial lake where an exercise was carried out with water at very low temperatures. One of them, like other companions who managed to escape alive, carried a 3.5 kilo weight as punishment for the poor execution of another instruction in the previous days.
On the other hand, according to the lawyer Luis Romero, defense of the soldier Carlos León, various irregularities were committed during that December day, among them the order given by the captain that prohibited the soldiers from holding on to the rope/life guide “except in case of life or death” or the lack of doctors who could help them in case of emergency.
The three commanders are accused, for now, of an alleged crime against the effectiveness of the service.
The military Jiménez’s lawyers consider that, due to the “embryonic phase” of the investigation, the imposition of prison is necessary “as a preventive measure” to “not disturb the investigation” and avoid the “destruction of possible elements of evidence” or the “disruption of testimonies,” according to the document sent to Military Court 21 of Seville.
In this sense, they consider that the objective is the “safeguarding” of “materials” or “documents”, whether written or graphic, so that “they are not destroyed or disappear.”
They also defend the existence of a “criminal offense” in the death of the two soldiers and assure that the military judge states in an order that the case “not only has a criminal appearance”, but that in a “provisional” way it may have a “penal” character against the effectiveness of the service, according to Military Law.
