The Central Military Judge 2 of Madrid has agreed to consider it “relevant and pertinent, so that it can have potential to change the meaning of the judgment in some way”, to proceed with the hearing as a witness of a lieutenant, head of the second section of the Basic Plan Company training where they died two soldiers in the practice of crossing the Cerro Muriano lake on December 21.
In an order dated September 12, the military acknowledged that the testimony requested by the lawyer of the Defense of Lieutenant Tatobut refuses to accept the practice of self-serving documentary evidence since the IPECS of Lieutenant Tato (investigated) for the years 2020 and 2022, in the opinion of the judge “do not provide any relevant data related to the facts of the investigation in this summary”.
Furthermore, the military judge orders, on the other hand, to refer to the Military Judicial Prosecution Service the writing of lawyer Javier Manuel Gimeno Puche of July 24 of this year to make the appropriate assessment regarding the conduct of lawyer Luis Romero regarding the information disclosed to the media that, in his opinion, could harm his defense.
This practice of testifying with a new witness comes at a time when the various appeals of the parties were presented against the prosecutions brought against seven soldiers in this case, for which some of them requested the suspension of deadlines so that it does not cause impotence within the meaning of Article 24 of the Constitution.
On July 29, the military judge in charge of the investigation into the Cerro Muriano case issued an order to prosecute six commanders for the deaths of Corporal Jiménez and lion soldier during the December 21 maneuvers as they crossed an artificial lake on the Base’s maneuvering ground.
In this order, which is in the appeal phase filed by the parties, five of them are charged with an alleged crime comparable to reckless homicide in the Penal Code with sentences ranging from one year and two months to four years and nine months in prison, according to judicial sources consulted by this newspaper.
In the case of two alleged homicides due to gross negligence, “the type of concurrence applicable is the ideal – a single act constitutes two or more crimes – in which case the penalty in its upper half (from three years and six days to four years), unless the penalty resulting from the sum of the penalties for the two crimes separately is less,” these sources explain.
