Documento - Espa�a. Sal en la herida: La impunidad efectiva de agentes de polic�a en casos de tortura y otros malos tratos

Article 15 of the Spanish Constitution affirms the right to life and physical integrity, and prohibits torture and degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment in all circumstances(5). The criminal code of 23 November (1995) defines and establishes the penalties for acts of torture committed by public officials in Articles 174 – 176. The maximum penalty for torture is six years’ imprisonment and disqualification from office for up to 12 years. The law also criminalises the actions of a public official who, failing in his or her professional duty, allows torture or other ill-treatment to be committed by another person.(6)

Law enforcement bodies in Spain

Responsibility for law enforcement in Spain is divided among a number of bodies operated at national, autonomous regional (Comunidades Autónomas) and local level. There is also a distinction between forces of an exclusively civilian nature and the Civil Guard, which is both a civilian and military force under the control of both the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Defence.

State level

There are two state-wide law enforcement agencies – the National Police (Cuerpo Nacional de Policía, CNP) and the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil). The National Police is responsible for law enforcement primarily within large towns and cities while the Civil Guard operates in rural areas, smaller towns and territorial waters, and is also responsible for traffic and border control. The Civil Guard may also act as a military force under the command of the Ministry of Defence.

Autonomous regional level

Three of Spain’s autonomous communities operate their own autonomous regional police forces which have assumed competencies previously held by the National Police or Civil Guard in that area. The forces currently in operation are the Mossos d’Esquadra in Catalonia, the Ertzaintza in the Basque Country, and the Policía Foral in Navarra. In Galicia, Valencia and Andalucía, special police units exist which form distinct police bodies within the National Police.

Local level

District or town council (ayuntamiento) police forces also exist, known as Municipal or Local Police. They act under authority of the council and their jurisdiction extends only to the area governed by that same council. Their responsibilities traditionally have included areas such as traffic regulation and administration but these are increasing and some now also have public security functions.

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities.

Article 13, UN Convention against Torture

Great care should be taken to ensure that persons who may have been the victims of ill-treatment by public officials are not dissuaded from lodging a complaint.

Para. 39, CPT General Report 14

The case of Lucian Padurau

Lucian Padurau was arrested on 27 July 2006 by five autonomous regional police officers (Mossos d’Esquadra) outside his house in Barcelona, in a case of mistaken identity. Speaking to Amnesty International he described how he was beaten on the street as he was being arrested and how his pregnant wife, who was with him at the time, was also physically assaulted. He reported being physically assaulted again while in the police car on the way to the police station, as well as being threatened with a gun and told "You’d be better off confessing to everything. If the judge lets you off we’ll kill you." He said police officers continued to beat him until they arrived at Les Corts police station, and that that upon their arrival a police officer at the station told those who had arrested him, "Don’t hit him anymore, there are cameras here."

The next day Lucian Padurau was released from custody after the police realised he was not the man they had been seeking. He told Amnesty International that the police officers who had assaulted him apologised, saying "Sorry, it’s just the way life is" and offered to "help him out" if he ever had any "problems with anyone."

A few days after his release from custody, Lucian Padurau went to an investigating court to report the ill-treatment. He told Amnesty International that when he tried to register his complaint the court official told him it could not be recorded unless he could give the name and identification number of each of the officers involved. The court official recorded the complaint only after he threatened to inform the media of what had occurred. Following judicial investigation, the case was pending trial in September 2007.

States shall ensure that complaints and reports of torture or ill-treatment are promptly and effectively investigated…The investigators, who shall be independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve, shall be competent and impartial.

Principle 2, Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture

Independent entities are essential for investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by those responsible for law enforcement.

Para.1310, E/CN.4/2001/66, Special Rapporteur on torture

The Case of Sandra Guzmán

Sandra Guzmán told Amnesty International that on 25 December 2006 she witnessed a police officer from the autonomous regional police force (Ertzaintza) partially strip search, hit and kick several men of North African origin in a park in La Casilla, Bilbao. The officer’s colleagues (approximately seven in total) did nothing to intervene. Sandra Guzmán says she never saw the men offering any resistance to the police officers. She attempted to intervene, telling the police officers to arrest the men if they had committed a crime but to stop treating them in such a violent manner. One of the police officers told her that if she did not approve of what was happening she could make a complaint.

On 27 December Sandra Guzmán made a complaint regarding the incident at the autonomous Basque government’s Department of the Interior (which has responsibility for the autonomous regional police force) and a few days later she registered a criminal complaint at Investigating Court 1 of Bilbao.

Sandra Guzmán told Amnesty International that in mid-January 2007 a police officer from the internal affairs unit of the Ertzaintza visited her elderly parents’ house in Bilbao in search of her. Sandra Guzmán’s parents told her that this officer said that the officer involved in the incident had “overdone it” and had acted “out of line” but tried to convince her mother that Sandra Guzmán should withdraw the complaint because it would inconvenience her to have to give a formal witness statement.

The following day Sandra Guzmán telephoned the internal affairs officer (who had left a message for her to contact him). She says the officer told her that he had just received notification of her criminal complaint (to the investigating court) which would take priority over the internal investigation. She says he attempted to question her, stating that he was acting in the capacity of judicial police (police acting on behalf of the investigating judge) and that “sooner or later” he would be the one to take her statement. She refused to speak with him further on the matter without consulting her lawyer, commenting on the lack of impartiality that she was being questioned by an officer of the same force as the agents she had reported and who had, in addition, appeared at her parents’ house and recommended that she withdraw the complaint.

Each State party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture [or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 12, UN Convention against Torture

The responsibility for investigations falls under the State party’s obligation to grant an effective remedy.

UN Human Rights Committee, Hugo Rodríguez v. Uruguay, 19 July 1994, para.12.3.

The Case of Beauty Solomon

Beauty Solomon submitted two complaints of physical assaults by the same two national police officers relating to three separate incidents. She presented a complaint to Investigating Court 8 of Palma de Mallorca on 21 July regarding the first two alleged assaults (that occurred on 15 and 21 July), and submitted a second complaint on 25 July to Investigating Court 2 of Palma de Mallorca July concerning an alleged assault which occurred on 23 July. When submitting the complaints she included medical certificates issued by a public hospital recording evidence of her injuries.

In a report addressed to the first investigating court dated 11 October 2005, the chief of police confirmed that identity checks involving Beauty Solomon had taken place on 15 and 21 July as indicated by the complainant, but stated that no violent incident had occurred. In a report relating to the third alleged assault, addressed to the second investigating court and dated 28 December 2005, the same chief of police stated that police registers had no record of an identity check, or any other incident, taking place involving the complainant on 23 July. Neither of the investigating courts called any witnesses from the scenes of the incidents or conducted an identity parade, as requested by Beauty Solomon’s lawyer, and the complaints were not investigated further.

Beauty Solomon’s first complaint was dismissed on 17 October 2005 and Women’s Link Worldwide, an international NGO representing Beauty Solomon, submitted an appeal against the dismissal. This appeal remained pending in September 2007. The second complaint was also dismissed by the investigating court (on 22 February 2006) on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of a crime to proceed with an investigation. Beauty Solomon appealed against this decision on 1 June 2006 but the Provincial Criminal Court of Palma de Mallorca upheld the original decision on 7 March 2007. The decision by the appeal court referred only to the letter of 28 December 2005 in its ruling, without mentioning the letter of 11 October 2005.

On 10 April 2007 Women’s Link Worldwide presented a case to the Constitutional Court on behalf of Beauty Solomon on grounds of violation of her rights to due process (as well as non-discrimination, physical and moral integrity, dignity, and not to be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) as enshrined in international human rights law and the Spanish constitution. This case remained pending in September 2007.

The case of Jordi Vilaseca

Jordi Vilaseca’s complaint to the investigating court states that:

On 1 April 2003 Jordi Vilaseca was arrested by autonomous regional police officers while driving home from work at about 7pm. He was taken to the regional police station in Lleida where he was brought into a large windowless room, searched and his possessions were confiscated. Jordi Vilaseca was left in the cell overnight, where he was forced by guards to remain standing in the corner facing the wall without leaning against it. After approximately 10 hours he collapsed from exhaustion and remained lying on the floor. The following morning he was made to kneel without resting on his heels for approximately four hours. Later that day he was taken to his home while police officers searched it. He remained handcuffed throughout the search. He was then returned to the police station.

Upon return to the same cell he was aggressively interrogated by a national police officer(21) who pretended to strangle Jordi Vilaseca with his own dreadlocks, stating "These would be good for tying you to the radiator." At one point the officer pinned him to the wall by the neck, shouting, "Don’t look at me!" and "Everyone talks in the end!" He was told he would be sent to prison in the Canary Islands where he would catch AIDS. He was also told that his girlfriend would be arrested and the police officers would rape her. After these interrogations Jordi Vilaseca was taken to make a formal police statement. He says it was obvious during the interrogations what the police officers wanted him to say, so he said it in his statement even though it meant incriminating himself. A duty roster lawyer was present while he made the statement but they were not able to speak to each other. He said that the officers were apparently not satisfied with the statement and took Jordi Vilaseca back to the cell for further interrogations and told him "he hadn’t said enough." Some time later he was taken to make a new statement, accompanied by a hooded police officer. A new roster lawyer was present who asked for Jordi Vilaseca’s home phone number so he could advise the family of the detention, but the police told him "Don’t get involved."

After making his second police statement Jordi Vilaseca says he was transferred to another cell and given a ham sandwich to eat. He started to eat it but then lost consciousness. When he woke he was in hospital, unable to speak, walk or control his bowels. There were police officers guarding his bed while doctors examined him. After a few hours he was sent to the Santa María psychiatric hospital where he remained until being discharged on 8 April 2003.

Jordi Vilaseca told Amnesty International that after leaving hospital he hired a private lawyer, who immediately made a complaint against the police for torture. As a result a judicial investigation into the case was opened by Investigating Court 2 of Lleida, but in May 2005 the investigating judge ordered the provisional discharge of the investigation at the request of the public prosecutor who argued that there was a lack of evidence and contradictory versions of events from the complainant and the police. Jordi Vilaseca’s lawyer appealed against the decision to the Provincial Criminal Court – arguing that during the initial investigatory stage of proceedings the existence of contradictory testimonies was to be expected – and on 18 November 2005 the Provincial Criminal Court ordered the lower court to reopen the case. However, Jordi Vilaseca told Amnesty International that after the case was officially reopened no action was taken and in February 2007 the court then closed it again. Once again an appeal was introduced against the decision but it was rejected on 12 May 2007. Jordi Vilaseca lodged a case with the Constitutional Court at the end of May 2007 which remained pending in September 2007.

European Court of Human Rights Chamber Judgement

Martínez Sala and Others vs. Spain, 2 November 2004

On 2 November 2004, in the case of Martínez Sala and Others vs. Spain the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that the failure to hold an effective official investigation into allegations of ill-treatment in custody violated the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of the ECHR to be free from torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The applicants were arrested in 1992 in connection with investigations into terrorist offences relating to a Catalan independence movement. After being released from custody they lodged a complaint of ill-treatment with an investigating judge in Madrid. The case was provisionally discharged on the grounds that the forensic doctors’ reports showed no proof of ill-treatment. Appeals by the applicants were dismissed.

The applicants repeated their claims of ill-treatment when they were brought to trial at the National Criminal Court, but the court declined to investigate this matter at the hearing. After the trial the investigating judge reopened the investigation into alleged ill-treatment, at the applicants’ request. In November 1997 it was provisionally discharged again on the grounds of lack of evidence. This decision was upheld by the Provincial Criminal Court of Madrid and the Constitutional Court.

The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Spanish court had relied solely on the report of the forensic doctor when it found there was a lack of evidence to sustain the allegations of ill-treatment, and considered it "unfortunate" that the court had not taken statements from the arresting officers, the custodial officers, or the applicants. By denying all requests of the applicants for specific evidence to be obtained, the court had denied any reasonable opportunity to establish the veracity of their claim.

The Court held that there had been insufficient evidence submitted to establish the claim of ill-treatment and thus found no violation of Article 3 with respect to the substantive aspect of the claim. However, the Court found that there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR arising from the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the allegations. This ruling underscores that the requirement to conduct a prompt, independent and impartial investigation is inherent in the state’s obligations under the ECHR to prohibit torture and other ill-treatment.

The case of Sergio LD(22)

On 16 March 2002, Sergio LD attended an anti-globalisation demonstration in the centre of Barcelona. Towards the end of the event some violent incidents occurred and around 100 people were arrested. Sergio LD was arrested and later charged with public disorder, damaging property and causing injury to several national police officers. He has always denied responsibility for these offences and claims he was the victim of mistaken identity. He reported that during his arrest and detention he was subjected to a series of assaults and threats which resulted in physical injuries that lasted for several months. For the past five years he has been undergoing counselling for the resulting psychological harm. In his complaint to the investigating court, Sergio LD states that:

Sergio LD was arrested in the Plaza de Colón (Barcelona) by four masked plainclothes national police officers who threw him to the ground, handcuffed him and then pushed him into a police van where he landed on the floor. There were no other detainees present in the van. As he lay immobile one of the police officers closed the door repeatedly on his right leg causing injury to his shin and ankle. The same officer then beat him repeatedly on the left leg with his truncheon and pinched the injured areas roughly with his hand. Another police officer stamped on his head several times. Another officer tried to twist back his fingers. At the same time, police officers were spitting on him and threatening him, saying, "We’re going to kill you, you’ll pay for all of them." They also called to the driver of the van saying, "What a pain it’s your turn to drive, you’re missing all the fun."

The van was driven away and after a short time Sergio LD was pulled out of the vehicle and thrown to the ground. Two officers then picked him up and transferred him to a police car, forcing him violently against it head first "like a battering ram" before pushing him inside. Upon arrival at the La Verneda national police station an officer from the station punched Sergio LD in the stomach. He was then transferred to a room where he was made to kneel and look at the floor, while still wearing handcuffs. A police officer closed the window blinds and then three officers kicked and punched Sergio LD all over the body until he began to have muscle seizures and became temporarily incontinent. He believed they were going to kill him. Following this Sergio LD was made to sit on a chair with his hands tied behind his back while another officer took his identity papers. Sergio LD had begun to vomit at this time and the police officer gave him a rubbish bin to be sick in. Afterwards a police officer dressed in riot gear entered the room and, encouraged by those already present, hit Sergio LD in the face so hard that he fell off the chair. The officer then stamped on his head.

At this point, Sergio LD was taken to the medical unit inside the police station where his injuries were cleaned. The police officers remained present throughout the medical examination, leaving Sergio LD unable to speak to the doctor in private and report the abuse he had suffered. He was given a tranquilizer and the doctor recommended that he be taken to the emergency ward at the hospital due to his head injuries. Instead, he was returned to the room where he had been assaulted. A police officer wearing a scarf which covered the bottom part of his face took out a knife and pressed it against Sergio LD’s leg saying "Now you’re going to tell me everything." He was transferred to another room where the same officer and another, who also had his face covered with a scarf, began to interrogate him regarding the demonstration he had attended and personal details about himself. They asked him repeatedly about a tattoo on his body, at which point he realised he had been wrongly identified as he does not have such a tattoo. While they interrogated him, one of the officers took out a leather whip and used it to beat Sergio LD on the soles of the feet. The threats continued and they told him they would throw him out of the window.

Finally Sergio LD was taken for fingerprinting and moved to a cell with other detainees. During the night he did not sleep but lost consciousness several times and suffered nausea. Throughout the night his cellmates requested medical attention for him but he was not taken to the hospital until 9am the following morning, after which he was returned to the police station and then taken before the judge to be charged with public disorder, damage to property and assaulting a police officer.

Sergio LD told Amnesty International that on 6 September 2002 he made a formal complaint to Investigating Court 2 of Barcelona regarding torture, assault on personal integrity and injury. As there were no CCTV cameras in the police station there was no video evidence to substantiate his allegations, but they were supported by numerous medical reports and positive identification of several of the officers during identity parades. Despite the gravity of the facts alleged, the public prosecutor and investigating judge classified the case as one of "faltas" (misdemeanours) instead of "delitos" (crimes) which meant that no in-depth preliminary investigation was conducted into the incident and the case was provisionally discharged in January 2003 on the basis of a lack of evidence. Sergio LD presented an appeal against this decision to the Provincial Criminal Court of Barcelona which ruled, on 9 December 2003, that the actions of the lower court had been incorrect and "absolutely unacceptable" and ordered the lower court to open an investigation into a possible crime of torture. At the time of this report going to print the case was still in the investigatory stage.

The Case of Iona Collins

Iona Collins, a British citizen, went on holiday to Barcelona with a friend in June 2006. Following her attempt to intervene in what appeared to be a violent assault on a young woman by several police officers from the autonomous regional police force (Mossos d’Esquadra) Iona Collins was arrested by the same officers. She told Amnesty International that she was punched in the face by an officer as she tried to photograph the scene. This incident was witnessed by a friend accompanying her and two security guards outside a bar nearby. She was then taken to the Les Corts police station in Barcelona where she says she was subjected to further ill-treatment by police officers. She explained that when she was taken to a cell by approximately five police officers she started crying in a state of panic and tried to hold on to the bars of the cell to avoid being pushed inside. She was forced inside the cell by the officers, where they then began to beat her. She was kicked and punched all over the body and head. She was handcuffed while she lay on the ground and she was kicked in the head. The fear and panic made her temporarily incontinent and she believes that at one point she may have lost consciousness.

Iona Collins was persuaded by her lawyer not to make a complaint against the police officers involved because the lawyer considered that there were limited chances of success, despite the medical reports and photographs obtained after her release from custody which recorded her injuries, and testimony from witnesses at the scene of arrest.

Although Iona Collins made no formal complaint, in her testimony to the investigating court on 14 June she stated that she had been punched by police officers at the scene of arrest and later in the police station, and that she had been kicked in the head after approximately five officers pushed her to the ground while trying to make her enter the police cell. She also told the court that she had bruising in various parts of her body. In accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of the UN Convention against Torture the court should automatically have ordered that an investigation be launched into these allegations. However, no such investigation was opened and Amnesty International was informed that no internal disciplinary inquiry had been conducted.

Iona Collins was convicted of resisting authority. The investigating judge did not take a statement from the friend of Iona Collins who was present at the scene and did not question the contradiction in the testimonies given by the two security guards. Iona Collins was ordered to pay compensation to the two police officers allegedly injured in the incident, as well as court costs, and initially sentenced to a six-month suspended jail term which was later replaced by a fine totalling 2,180euros.

A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary.

Principle 24, Body of Principles on the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

Persons in police custody should have a formally recognised right of access to a doctor... Further, the right of access to a doctor should include the right of a person in custody to be examined, if the person concerned so wishes, by a doctor of his/her own choice (in addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by the police)… All medical examinations of persons in police custody must be conducted out of the hearing of law enforcement officials and, unless the doctor concerned requests otherwise in a particular case, out of the sight of such officials.

Para. 42, CPT General Report 12

In particular, examinations shall be conducted in private under the control of the medical expert and outside the presence of security agents and other government officials.

Principle 6, Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

It is a gross contravention of medical ethics, as well as an offence under applicable international instruments, for health personnel, particularly physicians, to engage, actively or passively, in acts which constitute participation in, complicity in, incitement to or attempts to commit torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Principle 2, Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Case of Marcos V(26)

In his complaint of ill-treatment submitted to the investigating court, Marcos V (see below) stated that when he was taken to a local hospital in Madrid and examined by a doctor while he was in police custody on 1 December 2001, the doctor addressed him in a degrading tone and asked him "Is anything really wrong with you or did you come here to amuse yourself and waste my time?" Marcos V indicated where he felt pain but says the doctor told him there was nothing wrong with him and he was returned to the police station.

Marcos V’s complaint of ill-treatment it was provisionally discharged (on 5 February 2003) on the grounds that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed, as there was no certified physical injury.

All interrogation sessions should be recorded and preferably video-recorded, and the identity of all persons present should be included in the records.

Para 39.f, Consolidated recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture, A/56/156, 3 July 2001

The duration of any interrogation of a detained or imprisoned person and of the intervals between interrogations as well as the identity of the officials who conducted the interrogations and other persons present shall be recorded and certified in such form as may be prescribed by law.

Principle 23, UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

The electronic (i.e. audio and/or video) recording of police interviews represents an important additional safeguard against the ill-treatment of detainees.

Para. 36, CPT General Report 12

The case of Driss Zraidi(28)

Driss Zraidi, a Moroccan national, was detained and subjected to torture in the autonomous regional police force station of Roses, Catalonia, on 3 August 1998. As a result of his ill-treatment he suffered several fractured ribs and numerous head injuries which required eight days’ hospital treatment as an inpatient.

Driss Zraidi made a complaint regarding his ill-treatment to the Investigating Court 5 of Figueres on 5 August 1998, which led to the opening of an inquiry by the General Directorate of Citizen Security (Direcció General de Seguretat Ciutadana). In January 2003, 10 officers were charged with torture and bodily harm and four more were charged for failing to prevent the crime. However, on 20 May 2004 all 14 of the accused were acquitted by the Provincial Criminal Court of Girona, despite medical reports attesting to the injuries suffered and an audio tape recording of the incidents which apparently recorded five different conversations in which officers, believed to include some of the accused, discussed the assault, and another which recorded the sounds of blows and cries. The court found that the incident "without doubt constituted the crime of torture" but claimed that it was impossible to determine which of the accused officers was personally responsible for the attacks. A prior internal investigation within the police force had established the identity of the officers believed to be responsible but a key witness changed his testimony during the criminal investigation, making identification impossible. The internal investigation findings were not admissible to the court because the witnesses had not had access to a lawyer at the time that they made their statements.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which confirmed the ruling of the Provincial Criminal Court. A case was filed on 26 October 2005 in the Constitutional Court claiming violations of due process and the prohibition of torture and other inhuman treatment. The judgment remained pending in September 2007.

The case of Daniel Díaz Gallego, Manuel Matilla Parrilla, Israel Sánchez Jiménez, and Marcos V

On 1 December 2001, Daniel Díaz Gallego, Manuel Matilla Parrilla, Israel Sánchez Jiménez, and Marcos V, participated in a demonstration in the centre of Madrid protesting against a new law relating to higher education. Towards the end of the demonstration the situation became volatile and a number of violent incidents occurred, which resulted in assaults on police officers, as well as damage to public goods and private property.

The four men were arrested on suspicion of involvement with these incidents. They claim that while in police custody they were subjected to serious ill-treatment by police. Upon release from custody they each presented criminal complaints against the police, which related very similar events. In his complaint of ill-treatment submitted to the investigating court, Daniel Díaz states that:

Towards the end of the demonstration he was grabbed from behind by a national police officer, pushed to the ground where his head hit the curb, and handcuffed. He was pushed into a police car where a police officer forced Daniel Díaz’s head between his legs, causing him significant pain and impeding his breathing.

Upon arrival at Leganitos police station, Daniel Díaz was removed from the car and led inside the building by a police officer holding him by the neck who repeatedly banged him against the doors and walls of the corridors. He was taken to an area by the lifts where he was pushed against a wall and the police officer kicked him from behind before searching him. He was constantly insulted and told to face the ground. He was slapped in the face several times and told that a police officer had been injured and "he would really have to pay for it." He was beaten and kicked until he fell to the ground, where he was kicked again. He saw another detainee also being beaten on the ground by the same officer. A police officer, identified in the complaint as "X", removed from Daniel Díaz’s backpack a carpentry chisel (which he was carrying home for a course he was studying) and pressed it hard against Daniel Díaz’s ear, causing considerable pain and breaking the skin. He did the same to the other detainee.

Daniel Díaz continued to be beaten and slapped while being told not to look at the officers present. Officer X threatened him repeatedly, saying the police officers would kill him but first they had to decide "how to enjoy it most." At one point Daniel Díaz was slapped hard on the right ear and felt a small pop inside his ear followed by a buzzing sound. He lost hearing in that ear for a period of one month as a result. He was repeatedly threatened and told that he was responsible for throwing a brick that injured a police officer and that "we caught you and that’s it – you’re going to pay for it. You’re going to spend a long time in prison with all the trash like you, that’s if you get there alive."

Officer X threatened him with a knife, saying "What do you think I’m going to do with this?" Other officers shouted, "Cut his neck" and "Cut off his balls so he’ll remember us." The officer cut off two of Daniel Díaz’s dreadlocks telling him they would be a "war trophy." They continued to slap him in the face.

Daniel Díaz and the other detainee were later taken to a small health clinic for a medical exam. When they entered the clinic they were taken to an empty waiting room. In this room the two detainees were beaten by four police officers who kicked them, punched them and kneed them. The beating ended when the officer X punched Daniel Díaz in the stomach, expelling all the air from his lungs and making him fall to the floor where another officer kicked him as he tried to regain his breath. The two detainees were put against the wall, handcuffed. A short while later the second detainee was taken for a medical examination and Daniel Díaz was left alone in the room. Officer X told him "Don’t even think about shouting" before kneeing him in the thigh and then giving him three small electric shocks in the same spot saying "this hurts, eh?"

Daniel Díaz was taken for a medical examination and asked what injuries he had. He said he did not know but that his whole body hurt and he pointed out various injuries, some of which he thinks the doctor did not note down. He did not say he had been beaten by the police because he was afraid of the consequences – two police officers (including Officer X) were present in the room throughout the examination. At this point he was told for the first time that he was under arrest for assault on a public agent and they were going to take him to a cell at the Moratalaz police station.

Daniel Díaz and the other detainee were consequently taken by police car to the Moratalaz station. Officer X brought him into the building pulling his hair and making him look at the ground continuously. Both detainees were made to stand against a wall while numerous police officers entered the room and hit them from behind.

Daniel Díaz was then taken to another room where he was read his rights, told the accusations against him, and given a duty roster lawyer. The officers told Daniel Díaz to tell them who had thrown the brick at the police officer. When he said he did not know who it was they told him they would blame him and he would go to prison for a long time.

He was returned to the other room where Officer X punched him twice in the face and then in the back of the head. He threatened to throw Daniel Díaz out of the window saying, "You wouldn’t be the first." Daniel Díaz was beaten again in the stomach and backside and forced to remain standing facing the wall without leaning on it. Two police officers, with their faces covered, arrived and one of them told the other officer, "Stop hitting him, damn it!" when the latter assaulted him again. Daniel Díaz was taken down to the cells and questioned again over who had thrown the brick. Finally, he was searched again and placed in a cell with the three other detainees mentioned above.

On 14 January 2002, Daniel Díaz presented this complaint of illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment, threats, degrading treatment and assault on physical integrity to Investigating Court 2 of Madrid, supported by medical reports. On 24 June 2003 the court acquitted both accused police officers on the grounds that it could not be proven that they were responsible for the ill-treatment, despite confirming the evidence of Daniel Díaz’s physical injuries. Marcos V, Manuel Matilla and Israel Sánchez also presented complaints alleging ill-treatment very similar to that described by Daniel Díaz but they were all rejected on the grounds of lack of evidence.

Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Article 13, UN Convention against Torture

Alleged victims of torture or ill-treatment, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation that may arise pursuant to the investigation.

Article 3(b), UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The Committee calls upon the State party to … ensure the right of victims of torture to lodge a complaint without the fear of being subjected to any kind of reprisal, harassment, harsh treatment or prosecution […]

Para.102, Concluding Observations of the UN Committee against Torture (Tunisia) A/54/44

The case of Daniel Guilló Cruz

According to his complaint to the investigating court, repeated in interviews with Amnesty International:

On the night of 11 January 2007 Daniel Guilló Cruz was accompanying his girlfriend Tamara Blanco Ovalles and another female friend home just after midnight in Ciudad de los Poetas, Madrid. They were stopped by two plain-clothes national police officers, who told Daniel Guilló to hand over the marijuana cigarette he had in his hand and any other drugs he was carrying. One of the officers then began to beat him as the other pushed him against a car, holding him by the neck. Daniel Guilló and the two women with him believed the men assaulting him were muggers, as they had not identified themselves as police officers. Such was the violence of the attack that the women used their mobile phones to call the emergency services to ask for police assistance.

Tamara Blanco’s mother and brother had heard the cries for help as the incident took place outside their apartment building. They came to the scene and were also beaten by one of the officers. Uniformed police reinforcements arrived and joined the officers beating Daniel Guilló. It was only at this time that the victims became aware that the two men who had initially approached them were police officers.

Daniel Guilló was handcuffed and told he was under arrest for assault on a public agent. He was then punched in the face several times by one of the plain clothes officers, and suffered a broken nose as a result. His two friends were arrested for assault on a public agent and threats. When Tamara Blanco’s mother went to the police station to enquire after her daughter, she was also arrested for assault.

Daniel Guilló told Amnesty International that the day following his arrest he was informed that he was additionally being charged with attempted homicide, almost 10 hours after originally being arrested for assault. It was alleged that he had taken a gun from one of the police officers’ holsters and attempted to fire it repeatedly into the chest of one of the officers. It was claimed that it had not fired because the safety catch was in place. In their statements, which Amnesty International has reviewed, the police officers involved claimed that Daniel Guilló and his two friends were the aggressors and denied having used any disproportionate force against any of them. They also maintained that they had identified themselves as police officers.

Daniel Guilló denies that he took a gun from the police officers and believes that the charges of attempted homicide were fabricated in order to put pressure on him not to make a complaint against the police for ill-treatment (which he subsequently did anyway, on 19 January) or to discredit his version of events if he did so. Daniel Guilló’s testimony was corroborated by local residents who were present at the scene, who refer in their statements to the investigating judge to the violent and apparently unmotivated beating he received from the police officers and the lack of aggression on his part. They did not see Daniel Guilló reach for a gun at any time, and a forensic report on the weapon found no fingerprints.

Prosecutors shall give due attention to the prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly corruption, abuse of power, grave violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law and … the investigation of such offences.

Article 15, UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors

Generally, the main obstacle is manifested by the conflict of interest inherent in having the same institutions responsible for the investigation and prosecution of ordinary law-breaking being also responsible for the same functions in respect of law-breaking by members of those very institutions.

E/CN.4/2001/66, para.1310, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture

The right to lodge complaints against maltreatment prohibited by article 7 must be recognized in the domestic law. Complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective.

Para 14, Human Rights Committee General Comment 20 on Article 7 of the ICCPR

To be effective, the investigation must also be conducted in a prompt and reasonably expeditious manner.

Para 35, CPT General Report 14 (emphasis in original)

The case of Juan Daniel Pintos Garrido, Alex Cisterna Amestica and Rodrigo Lanza Huidobro

Juan Daniel Pintos Garrido, Alex Cisterna Amestica and Rodrigo Lanza Huidobro were arrested on 4 February 2006 after a local police officer (Guardia Urbana) was gravely injured in disputed circumstances outside a party in a house in Barcelona. All three men deny any involvement in the incident and have also claimed they were subjected to serious physical ill-treatment during arrest and while in detention at the police station. As of September 2007 they continue to be held in remand detention awaiting trial on charges of assault on a public officer and attempted homicide. In their complaints of ill-treatment submitted to the investigating court, the men stated the following:

In the early hours of the morning of 4 February 2006 Juan Pintos, Alex Cisterna and Rodrigo Lanza were walking home after spending the night out with friends. At approximately 6am they reached Sant Pere street where a number of local police officers and other individuals were already present. While talking to one of the local police officers to enquire whether he could pass through to get to the metro, Rodrigo Lanza states that a second local police officer beat him on the head and ribs, leaving him disorientated. At that moment the police officers began to charge at the assembled group and Rodrigo Lanza saw several people being hit by police with truncheons. He ran a short distance and collapsed on the ground, where another local police officer caught him, hit him, handcuffed him and took him to a police car.

After he tripped and fell while running away from the police charge, Juan Pintos was picked up by a police officer who hit him on the shoulder and head with a truncheon and began dragging him down the street by his jacket before pushing him against a wall and handcuffing him. The officer then began to pull Juan Pintos by his hair, pulling some of it out in the process. Juan Pintos was left sitting on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind him. Several police officers hit him with truncheons while one stamped on his hands and another kicked him in the right side of the face. After this he was pushed into a police van by a plain-clothes police officer.

Alex Cisterna stated that he was beaten about the face, stomach, hip, legs and arms by police officers as he also tried to run away. He was then handcuffed and dragged on the ground before being pulled up by the hair and thrown into the police car with Rodrigo Lanza. Alex Cisterna and Rodrigo Lanza were transferred to the van where Juan Pintos was detained a short while later. Together with other detainees they were taken to the local police force station of Ciutat Vella, Barcelona. During the journey they were threatened and insulted by the police officers in the van who told the men they would kill them if anything happened to the injured local police officer.

Upon arrival at the police station the men were put in separate cells, alone. An officer hit Alex Cisterna on the hip repeatedly while asking, "Does this hurt?" Rodrigo Lanza was punched in the face three times by a local police officer, injuring his nose and making him fall to the ground. The officer shouted "My colleague is in a coma. If he dies you’ll be next, you son of a bitch." The same officer hit him in the legs, arms and back with his truncheon, spat on him, and twisted his arm.

A doctor came to examine the detainees and recommended they be treated in hospital. During transfer and at the hospital the police officers accompanying them made racist insults about the men’s South American origins and threatened them with further ill-treatment if they said anything to the doctors about the cause of their injuries. The officers remained present during the medical exam and none of the detainees told the examining doctor about the ill-treatment to which they had been subjected by the police. Rodrigo Lanza required stitches to his head. Juan Pintos’s hand was put in plaster. While the doctor was absent one of the police officers squeezed his injured hand and twisted back his finger while laughing at him. Another police officer used his mobile phone to take a photograph of Juan Pintos and told him he would kill him if he saw him again.

After being examined at the hospital the detainees were returned to the local police station and then transferred to Sants-Montjuïc autonomous regional police force (Mossos d’Esquadra) station where they were put into individual cells. Before being transferred from the police station one of the officers handcuffed Alex Cisterna tightly across his bandaged wrist and asked "Does that hurt, you fucking Sudaca(39)?" Another police officer hit him on the leg. At the second police station Rodrigo Lanza was taken for fingerprinting and then to another room where he was made to strip to his underwear and was photographed in the presence of three police officers. According to Rodrigo Lanza’s testimony, one of the officers slapped him in the face, causing him to fall to the floor after asking him if he knew why he had been arrested. Using one hand to partially strangle him, the officer knelt on his chest while asking "Does this hurt?" Juan Pintos was also made to strip and was photographed by a police officer whose face was covered by a hood.

Alex Cisterna was taken to a cell and punched by police officers who knocked him to the ground and left him bleeding from the mouth and nose. One of the officers kicked him in the stomach leaving him winded. They then picked him up by the hair and took him to wash his face. When he tried to drink some water they hit him on the head telling him, "We didn’t say you could drink" and "You’re a Sudaca and all Sudacas are pieces of shit." Later two police officers took him for fingerprinting and then returned him to the cell where he had been earlier where they beat him and kicked him again. They laughed and told him, "If we kill you nobody will care because you Sudacas are shit." Then they took him to wash his face again and returned him to his cell.

Amnesty International was informed that on 6 February Juan Pintos, Alex Cisterna and Rodrigo Lanza appeared before the investigating court and were remanded in pre-trial detention under investigation for attempted homicide. The three men all made complaints of ill-treatment against the police. Their families and lawyers claim that the investigating judge (who is investigating both the charges against Juan Pintos, Alex Cisterna and Rodrigo Lanza as well as their complaints of ill-treatment against the police) has made comments which demonstrate a biased attitude towards the proceedings in favour of the police officers involved. They say the judge informed their lawyers that she would consider as a suspect (in relation to the injured police officer) any individual at the scene who was not a police officer and as a result the victims have not been able to present any witnesses who were present at the time of their arrest.

Although the complaints of ill-treatment were made by the complainants at the same time as the charges were brought against them concerning the injured police officer, at the same investigating court and under control of the same judge, the speed at which each case has been investigated differs greatly. The investigatory stage of the attempted homicide case was completed in June 2006 and the case was pending trial in September 2007. In contrast, nobody was called to make a witness statement on the allegations of ill-treatment until January 2007 (despite the fact that the same individuals had already appeared before the court to declare in the attempted homicide case). The investigating judge did not request information from the police forces involved - for example, the roster of officers on duty at the time of the complainants’ detention - until 12 March 2007, more than a year after the events. Representatives of the Mossos d’Esquadra internal affairs unit told an Amnesty International delegation in June 2007 that no internal investigation had been launched into the incident.

The complainants’ lawyers requested that the judge organise an identity parade in order to identify the officers allegedly responsible for the ill-treatment. The defence and the public prosecutor opposed the suggestion. It was not until 18 July 2007 (almost 18 months after the incident) that the judge ordered Rodrigo Lanza to examine a photocopied A4 sheet of paper with 20 small, out of date, black and white photographs of police officers and told him to identify the officers responsible for his ill-treatment, including one who hit him from behind. Subsequently, the investigating judge provisionally discharged the three complaints of ill-treatment at the end of July. The complainants’ have submitted an appeal. Their families have also informed Amnesty International that they question the impartiality of the judge and fear that the trial will be unfair.

The case of Javier S(40)

According to the complaint he submitted to the investigating court:

Javier S was arrested by two national police officers in Plaça de la Universitat (Barcelona) on the evening of 3 June 2005 while sitting with a small group of friends who had just participated in a gay pride demonstration. The officers grabbed him, beat him, stamped on his head, neck and back, and then handcuffed him before throwing him into a police car. He was not told why he had been arrested. Along with several others who had also been detained he was taken to the police station in Via Augusta.

Upon arrival at the police station the detainees - nine in total - were subjected to insults, including homophobic comments. They were refused permission to use the toilet, to have something to drink or to see a doctor. Javier S was beaten with a truncheon on the chest and punched in the face several times by an officer who shouted, "You little faggot, you can’t take anything!" One of the police officers kicked him in the chest leaving a boot mark imprinted on his shirt and punched him repeatedly. As a result Javier S was unable to breathe for several seconds and began to have muscle spasms. The other detainees and one of the police officers present were concerned for his welfare and asked for him to be taken to hospital but this request was denied. After a few minutes two police officers picked him up from the bench and he believed he was being taken for medical treatment. However, instead of doing so, the same police officer who had kicked him hit Javier S in the chest again while trying to wipe away his boot print. He insulted Javier S continuously saying, "You’re such a little faggot." Javier S was later taken to Hospital del Mar for a medical examination. The doctor gave him some medication and instructions on how to deal with his injuries but upon return to the police station the police officers ignored the medical advice and did not give him the medication. Javier S spent the night sleeping on the floor of the police cell without a mattress before being transferred the next day to the police station in Via Laietana.

Javier S told Amnesty International that immediately after their release from police custody on 7 June 2005, he and four others of those arrested with him made formal complaints of ill-treatment at Investigating Court 22. Their complaints were rejected by the judge on 2 September who concluded that the police had acted with the minimal force necessary at the time of the arrest. The judge did not comment on the allegations of ill-treatment inside the police station and did not call any of the plaintiffs to make a statement. According to court documents to which Amnesty International has had access, the judge concluded that "there is no reason to consider… that the police report is contrary to the truth."(41) He reasoned that although police action should be independently investigated, "this requirement does not imply that the police … must always and automatically be excluded on grounds of partiality from reporting on the events."(42) The complainants appealed against this decision on 19 October and the judge continued to reject the complaint. Javier S appealed again, to the Provincial Criminal Court of Barcelona, which on 7 December overruled the lower court’s decision and ordered it to investigate the allegations. In contrast to the investigating court, the appeal court noted in its decision the "patent lack of impartiality" and indeed "positive interest"(43) of the police to produce reports favourable to their colleagues when investigating such allegations.

As a result, the investigating court ordered several police officers to appear and give statements. Javier S, his lawyer, and the other complainants went to the court on 15 February 2006 to participate in the proceedings but Javier S told Amnesty International only the lawyers were allowed to enter the building. However, while waiting outside Javier S and the other plaintiffs saw the "accused" police officers arriving and realised that only one of them had been present during the incident. Javier S informed his lawyer of this fact, who transmitted this information to the investigating judge and refused to participate further in the proceeding, calling it a "farce."

On 8 March 2006 the investigating judge closed the case again on the basis that the testimonies given by the police officers who had appeared in court (and who the complainants claimed were not the ones present in the police station during the incident) did not indicate any misconduct had occurred. The complainants appealed again, calling for the investigating judge to request from the police station a full list of officers on duty on the day of the incident in order to identify and question those believed to have been involved in the assaults, but to date they have been unsuccessful in reopening the case.

The repeated closure of the case and the judge’s failure to investigate promptly, thoroughly and impartially have resulted in the case being closed without ever reaching trial. The only recourse left to the complainants is to petition the Constitutional Court on the grounds of denial of due process, which is a lengthy and expensive procedure Javier S says he is financially unable to pursue. The complainants continue to feel great anger and frustration at what they view as a double failure of the police and judicial system. With the support of a local NGO, the Gay Liberation Front of Catalonia (Front d’Alliberament Gai de Catalonia), Javier S has continued to seek justice through other channels, including through the state government representative in Catalonia (delegado del gobierno) and the regional human rights ombudsperson (Síndic de Greuges), both of whom have assured him that an investigation would take place. However, to date he has received no further information from either.

The Case of Daniel Díaz Gallego and others

On 3 October 2005 Manuel Matilla and Daniel Díaz were sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for assault on a public agent, assault, and public disorder. Israel Sánchez was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for public disorder and assault on a public agent. Marcos V was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for assault on a public agent. Another man, arrested at the same time as the others and on the same charges, was acquitted on the grounds that he had not been identified as a suspect by the police officers testifying before the court. According to information available to Amnesty International he was the only one of the accused who had not filed a complaint of ill-treatment.

The Provincial Criminal Court of Madrid upheld the sentences on appeal on 25 April 2007. In its judgement the court stated that the defendants were originally convicted "exclusively on the testimony of the other local police officers [present at the scene of the arrest] …without bearing in mind the other evidence gathered or the discrepancies between the testimonies given in court and those given by the same witnesses earlier in the investigation", (44) but did not appear to consider this inappropriate.

Each State Party shall make these offences [acts of torture and complicity in torture] punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 4, UN Convention against Torture

When ill-treatment has been proven, the imposition of a suitable penalty should follow… The imposition of light sentences can only engender a climate of impunity.

Para.41, CPT General Report 14

The case of Juan Martínez Galdeano

On 24 July 2005, Juan Martínez Galdeano presented himself at the Civil Guard police station in Roquetas de Mar, Almería, to request assistance following a traffic dispute. According to the facts established by the Provincial Criminal Court of Almería, following an altercation with the officers present, Juan Martínez Galdeano was arrested for disobedience and resisting agents of authority. As he became increasingly agitated the situation deteriorated further and he was handcuffed and beaten with truncheons (including a non-regulation extendible truncheon) by officers present. A non-regulation electro-shock ("Taser") weapon was also used against him.

Juan Martínez Galdeano died in the police station. The original autopsy conducted on 29 July 2005 was unable conclusively to determine the key factor which caused his death, which was recorded as "an acute respiratory or cardio-respiratory insufficiency"(45) but did note that there was "a direct causal relation between the subject’s detention and his death."(46) His body was marked by a large number of bruises believed by the pathologist to have been caused by blows received and physical restraint techniques. A further autopsy on 10 January 2006 concluded the cause of death was an adverse reaction to cocaine aggravated by the violence committed against him.

On 26 July 2005 an internal investigation was launched on the basis of video footage from CCTV cameras in the police station and the information was passed to the judicial authorities, Investigating Court 1 of Roquetas de Mar. As a result, nine police officers were charged with inhuman treatment and assault. All nine were released on bail and the commanding officer was suspended from duty. Charges against one of the officers were later dropped.

On 19 March 2007 the case reached trial stage in the Provincial Criminal Court of Almería and the verdict was issued on 27 April. Five of the accused officers were acquitted. Two were convicted of causing injury and abuse of authority, and were fined. The commanding officer, José Manuel Rivas, was found guilty of minor assault and causing injury. He was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment, fined, and banned from office for three years. The sentence is being appealed by both the prosecution and the defence.

UN Committee against Torture decision, 17 May 2005.

Communication No. 212/2002, Kepa Urra Guridi

Kepa Urra Guridi was arrested on 22 January 1992 in a Civil Guard anti-terrorism operation. He claimed to have been tortured while in custody. On 7 November 1997 the Provincial Criminal Court of Vizcaya convicted three Civil Guard officers of torture, sentencing them to just over four years’ imprisonment and six years’ suspension from duty in the law enforcement agencies. The officers were also ordered to pay the victim compensation of half a million pesetas (approximately US$3,374 at the time).

The Office of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence to the Supreme Court, requesting a reduction in sentence and review of the facts. On 30 September 1998 the Supreme Court reduced the sentence to one year’s imprisonment for each officer. The Court reasoned that the applicant had been tortured in order to obtain information but that the injuries inflicted did not require medical treatment beyond first aid and as a result the one year sentence was proportional to the gravity of the crime.

The Ministry of Justice requested a pardon ("indulto") for the three officers, which was granted by the Council of Ministers on 16 July 1999. The officers were suspended from public duty for one month and a day, but in spite of this one of the officers remained on active duty.

The UN Committee against Torture considered that the actions of the State were contrary to its obligations under Article 2 of the UN Convention against Torture, according which requires State parties to take effective measures to prevent acts of torture. The Committee also concluded that the reduction of the sentences and granting of pardons violated Article 4 of the Convention which obliges the authorities to ensure that acts of torture are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of the offence. The Committee concluded that the victim had not received adequate reparation, as required by Article 14, which should include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition. As such, the Committee concluded that the State had violated the Convention.

The case of José Arregui

On 4 February 1981 José Arregui was arrested by national police officers in Madrid on terrorism related charges and detained in a cell at the Regional Information Brigade. On 12 February he received medical treatment at the General Penitentiary Hospital of Carabanchel. Numerous injuries were noted in the medical reports. He died the following day from a bronchopneumonial illness while being transferred to another hospital. Although the autopsy confirmed this illness as his cause of death, it also noted evidence of physical violence on the body, including suspected cigarette burns on his feet. An investigation was opened into possible ill-treatment and two police officers were brought to trial – the sergeant and the officer who took the police statement, Juan Antonio Gil Rubiales.

In 1983 the Provincial Criminal Court of Madrid acquitted the two officers on grounds of lack of evidence linking them to the injuries suffered by the deceased. On the order of the Supreme Court in 1985 the Provincial Criminal Court was required to restate its judgement on the grounds that the original judgement issued was insufficiently clear. The court confirmed its acquittal of the two suspects but this time on the grounds that there was no evidence of ill-treatment at all, notwithstanding the existence of forensic reports to the contrary. In September 1989 the Supreme Court overruled the Provincial Criminal Court and convicted both officers for the crime of torture, sentencing them to two and three years of suspension without pay from their posts respectively and a maximum of four months’ detention ("arresto").

Following his suspension, Juan Antonio Gil Rubiales returned to work in 1992 in the Public Security Unit of the National Police in Madrid. From here he was subsequently promoted, first to Chief of the Police Intervention Unit in Gran Canaria (1996), then to Chief of Police in Arona, Tenerife, and most recently to Provincial Superintendent of Santa Cruz de Tenerife (March 2005).