The Marín court rejects its jurisdiction to investigate the 'Villa de Pitanxo' and returns the case to the National High Court

• Shipwreck in Newfoundland A survivor of the 'Villa de Pitanxo' says that the skipper and the owner pressured him to lie about the reason for the sinking

• Justice The Prosecutor's Office sees possible crimes of reckless homicide in the sinking of the 'Villa de Pitanxo'

The

(

) has refused to take on the investigation into the sinking of the

and has returned the case to the National High Court.

The judge rejects the thesis of the central player of the Court and the

's Office that the fishing boat should be considered national territory.

That would mean that the possible crimes of reckless homicide would not have been committed abroad and would not be the responsibility of the National High Court, but of the court in which the ship was moored and the owner was based.

The Marin judge affirms that the possible crimes "were committed in international waters, close to the

, in

."

And it wields a resolution of the Supreme Court that in 2001 resolved a question of jurisdiction raised between two investigating courts (

and

) for crimes allegedly occurring on a Spanish ship sunk in international waters.

According to the judge, from that Supreme Court resolution "it could be estimated that the jurisdiction in these cases corresponds to the Central Courts of the National High Court, since they are crimes committed outside the national territory."

She emphasizes that the Supreme added that this solution "has the advantages of its simplicity and security, avoiding jurisdictional conflicts that ordinarily entail procedural complexity and unnecessary delays."

better media

"The advantages of security and simplicity referred to in said resolution must be especially valued when attributing jurisdiction to investigate this case, and this not only because of its complexity and relevance, but also because of the means available to them. the aforementioned Central Courts of Instruction of the National High Court", the judge points out in the order.

The judge continues by indicating that, although it was not the jurisdiction of the Court, it would not be that of Marín either, but of some other court.

She indicates that "no legal or jurisprudential precept is known" that establishes that the base port of the ship is "a criterion for attributing territorial jurisdiction."

In his opinion, a criterion that can be sustained is that the competent court is the one in which "material evidence of the crime has been discovered."

As such, the recovered rescue raft could be understood, which returned to Galicia in a ship that came to the rescue of the

.

That raft "does not appear" that it has reached Marín, although it would be "simple" for the National Court to know where it was received "and thus be able to attribute, where appropriate, territorial jurisdiction."

Resource

Another option that, according to the judge, the Supreme Court has previously upheld is to give jurisdiction to the court "corresponding to the first Spanish port of arrival."

Again, the closest thing would be the judicial district to which the recovered rescue raft had arrived.

The judge continues to reject other possible criteria for attribution of jurisdiction.

For example, that the person who could be responsible for the crime, the captain of the ship, does not reside in Marín, but in

.

Nor does the criterion provided for in the law refer to who has heard of the crime.

It was to the National Court that the statement from the Pontevedra Civil Guard Command was addressed, considering that it was "the competent body to hear the investigation of the case, as the events occurred in international waters."

The Prosecutor's Office and the parties involved in the case may appeal the judge's decision, first in reform before the court itself and then on appeal before the Pontevedra Court.

If both in the National Court and in Pontevedra the refusals to investigate were maintained, it would be the Supreme Court in charge of saying which court is competent.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more

• National audience

• Pontevedra

• Galicia

• supreme court

• Canada

• Justice