Urgent probe into army in Ceuta, Spain, over torture of migrants

Some twenty medical reports from the University Hospital of Ceuta, with the identities of both victims and doctors, are now in the hands of the duty court. They are official documents and make it possible to investigate whether Spanish soldiers assaulted migrants after 70,000 people entered from Segarro on 30 and 31 July.

There is one detail that changes the tone of everything. Until recently, the allegations about beatings of migrants by Spanish uniformed personnel in Ceuta relied on photos, protected testimonies and audio recordings. Serious material, but with a gap: it was not always clear who the victim was. Now the duty court in Ceuta has some twenty reports from the **University Hospital of Ceuta**. Official paperwork. With the patient's name and the doctor who treated them. That is a different matter.

## What a medical report provides that a video does not

A hospital report certifies the injury, the date and the person. On its own, it does not prove who caused it, and that must be said clearly. But it does solve the problem that had stalled the investigation: identifying the injured and being able to take their statements. Those documents contain the statements of patients treated for injuries who claim they were beaten by Spanish soldiers patrolling the city. The accusation is serious and remains to be clarified. The difference is that there is now someone to ask.

The qualitative leap is not a small one. The images circulated by social media and news outlets showed injuries, but a photo with no owner cannot sustain a legal proceeding. The **22 detailed testimonies** gathered by **Amnesty International** in its September report, which documented "torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" attributed to members of the Legion and the Regulares Corps of Ceuta, were kept anonymous to protect those reporting. Understandable. And at the same time, a wall for the judge.

## The Defence Ministry audios and the problem of mockery

On the **15th** of that month, the **Ministry of Defence** forwarded to the duty court and the prosecutor's office several audios circulated by media outlets. In them, laughing, alleged soldiers stationed in the city boasted about beating migrants. The content is da repelús and its evidentiary value limited: with no identified victim, the judge has little to go on. That is the difference between an audio recording and a signed medical report.

## An obligation that does not depend on goodwill

International humanitarian law obliges states to investigate ex officio when there are indications of mistreatment or torture by public officials. It is not a political option or a public relations gesture. And here the indications exist: certified injuries, complaints and official documents before the courts. The Armed Forces would benefit from a swift and effective investigation, among other things because the alternative is that the perception takes hold that such behaviour is tolerated. That does more damage to an institution than any verdict.

The administration will have to be extra vigilant to meet those requirements. And the court will have to clarify whether those certified injuries were inflicted by Spanish soldiers. Until there is a judicial ruling, any conclusion about individual responsibility is premature.