Clash between the Interior and the National Court over the report on the migration crisis in Ceuta

The General Commissioner of Immigration and Borders of the Police, Julián Ávila, explained in detail this week to his superiors how the judge of the National Court, María Tardón, had asked them to remain silent about the police report that they were preparing in relation to the passage of some 70,000 migrants to Ceuta on July 30 and 31.

In a document that he sent to the police leadership, he stated that the judge had requested “maximum confidentiality” from members of her team through a telephone call, ten days after the assignment. This fact has once again caused a major clash between the Government and the Judiciary. The Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, complained this Thursday of having remained unaware of the drafting of the document, which he considered “of great interest” so that the Executive “exercises its constitutional functions with the greatest success,” but the judges (both the president of the Judiciary and the Government Chamber of the National Court) defended that it is about maintaining the independence of justice.

On Wednesday morning, after the leak of the report and after Marlaska asked the Director General of the Police, Francisco Pardo-Piqueras, for explanations of what happened, he summoned several commanders to put together all the pieces of the puzzle: the Commissioner General of Information, Javier Antonio Susin, and the Commissioner General of Immigration, Julián Ávila, as well as his number two, Alfredo García Miravete. At the end of that meeting, both general commissioners write reports, which they present to the Deputy Operational Director, José Luis Santafé, after three in the afternoon, detailing, among other things, why they had not informed their superiors before.

In the internal police documents, to which EL PAÍS has had access, it is explained that the Immigration Office received the magistrate's request on August 3 (although it was signed by the judge on July 31) with the order that they investigate whether the Ceuta migration crisis had been “a concerted or directed action by some criminal organization or group” and if “those who could have participated in such actions” could be identified. The story given by Commissioner Ávila details that throughout the month of August “different senior managers” of the police station held “conversations with the magistrate about the preparation of the aforementioned report.” Mainly, it refers to the head of the National Center for Immigration and Borders (CENIF) - which is the one who signed the aforementioned report pointing to the participation of Moroccan gendarmes collaborating at the border entrances -, David Agorreta, and the chief commissioner of the Central Unit of Illegal Immigration Networks and Documentary Falsities (UCRIF).

In the initial resolution signed by the judge to take the first steps in the case, no express mention is made of the fact that the police officers should refrain from reporting to their superiors. But, as detailed by the head of Immigration, in one of those conversations, specifically on August 10, María Tardón did tell them to maintain “the maximum reserve regarding the extremes” that they were incorporating into the report due to the judicial police function that they were fulfilling. “This indication is carried out in an open audio telephone conversation,” he reflects, in which the two heads of the units concerned, two chief inspectors of the Police and a head of service from each unit were present.

In that call, Tardón also tells them to “try to move forward as quickly as possible so that at the end of the month some type of report on the matter can be received,” even if it was “preliminary.” The magistrate had not made the decision whether to open a case or not, since she first wanted to receive the police document to see if the jurisdiction lay specifically with the National Court (based on whether the allegedly criminal acts were led by a criminal organization, had occurred outside of Spanish territory or affected national security). For this reason, on August 31, Tardón once again issued another resolution in that same sense, asking that they present “the requested report” or that they anticipate “in word format” a progress of the analysis.

That same morning, the head of CENIF sends the report “in paper format, closed and bound, along with a pendrive containing various audiovisual and photographic material.” Two police officers from the General Immigration Police Station take him and hand him over to the judge. And one day later, on Tuesday, El Español reveals the content of the Grande-Marlaska report. It is then that the rest of the Government learns that the conclusions indicate that what happened in Ceuta was not “something accidental”, but that the “immigration purpose” operated only as a “formal cover” to “direct a massive flow of people to Ceuta.”

The clash with the Judiciary

When the Minister of the Interior had the complete account of the events, he sent a written complaint to the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ), since he considered that the information in that police document was useful for his department and he did not understand the need for it to be reserved. In a new clash between the Executive and the judges, the response was unanimous both in public and in private. The president of the CGPJ and the Supreme Court, Isabel Perelló, agreed that the situation was extremely serious, but defended Tardón and his work in the jurisdictional function. “We must show maximum respect,” he reflected.

The National Court also closed ranks with this judge, who belongs to the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV) and arrived at the investigative court of this body eight years ago. In a letter signed unanimously by the nine members of the Governing Board, the judges showed their “absolute support” for Tardón and stated that “not only has he not interfered with national security with his actions,” but rather “he is acting for the preservation and defense of the general interest of Spain.” Judicial sources show their anger at this new encounter with Marlaska, despite the fact that, they say, he is aware of the possibility that the law grants judges to order investigative teams to encapsulate the information. They remember, for example, when he investigated the summary of the Faisán case in 2006 due to a tip-off in the terrorist group ETA and signed a resolution in which he asked the agents to “refrain” from “informing their superiors, given the confidentiality of the aforementioned investigation.”

In this case, Government sources point out that it is not a procedure for corruption, nor a leak that must be analyzed to avoid maximum interference, and, therefore, they cannot understand why information should be kept secret that, as it progresses, may be useful for making decisions in the Interior. Meanwhile, other judicial sources insist that any team that works under the direction of a judge begins to carry out judicial police work and, therefore, the judge can request secrecy if he so deems it.