Torres says the Ceuta report went to someone else with his surname

Torres and the report addressed to someone else

How does an official report on an episode that ended up in court go missing? The answer attributed to the President of the Canary Islands, Ángel Víctor Torres, is that the 26 July document was not received by him, but by someone with the same name. El Pueblo de Ceuta ran that line as a headline, and the social network where it spread filled up with replies. The explanation, as its defenders tell it, is that the addressee was another person with the same surname. Nobody has yet clarified how many civil servants share that name, or why the administration cannot tell them apart.

What is known about the 26 July report

The starting point is a specific date: 26 July. That day a report was issued on what peine in Ceuta and, according to the version picked up in the tweet, the Canary Islands president was not listed as the recipient. The story circulated through local media and social networks, and that is where the problem began: an administration that handles thousands of files cannot afford to let a critical document drift into limbo over a name coincidence.

Some argue the excuse is implausible. The most repeated argument is that, if the report existed, someone signed it, someone sent it and someone received it. The chain of custody of an official document does not depend on the recipient's name, but on the incoming mail registry. If the system cannot distinguish between two people with the same name, the fault lies not with the surname but with the procedure.

The political response and the wearing-down of the story

The issue reached the political arena as fast as the tweet spread. The opposition used it as an example of opaque management and, according to the published information, the Canary Islands government merely pointed out that the report was not addressed to its president. That kind of technical answer may work in an administrative file, but not in a public appearance.

The comparison making the rounds these days is that of a citizen who receives a fine and claims it was sent to someone else with the same name. The difference is that a private individual does not manage responsibilities over unaccompanied minors or borders. The administration does.

Why the Ceuta episode keeps dragging on

The Ceuta episode produced images that travelled around the country and a number of minors that is still disputed. The 26 July report was, in theory, the piece that documented what peine. The fact that its receipt depends on a repeated surname turns an administrative problem into a credibility problem.

The public debate has shifted from the substance to the detail. People no longer talk about what the report said, but about who had it. And that, in political terms, is a victory for whoever does not want the substance discussed.

---

In the end, the simplest explanation remains the most uncomfortable one: if the report never arrived, someone must hold the receipt. And if it did arrive, someone will have to explain why the opposite was said. The coincidence of surnames is a perfect excuse until someone asks for the incoming mail registry.