In December 2021, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Almeria requested the dismissal and filing of the case for the death of Iliass Tahiri, the 18-year-old boy who died in the ‘Tierras de Oria’ Juvenile Centre on 1 July 2019.
The prosecutor then requested the file, considering that it had not been “duly justified the perpetration of the crime” for which an investigation was opened for the death of the young man who died after being subjected to a “mechanical restraint”.
Specifically, the Juzgado de Instrucción No. 1 of Purchena issued an order dated 12 May 2022 by which it agreed the provisional dismissal of the proceedings for lack of justification of the perpetration of the crime.
Now, it is the Provincial Court of Almería which, according to TSJA sources consulted by this newspaper, has confirmed that it has requested the reopening of the case in which three workers of the entity managed by GINSO are accused.
Order 287/23, consulted by Reporters News, establishes that “the private prosecution has raised its case against the decision to shelve the proceedings, alleging that its right to effective judicial protection has not been respected and, in short, that the facts constitute a crime of reckless homicide”.
“The Public Prosecutor’s Office is in agreement with the decision handed down”.
“Likewise, in view of the proceedings carried out, the statements made by the investigated parties, witnesses, documents provided, including the recordings, the order states that the restraint measure was carried out in accordance with the protocol of the Oria Land Juvenile Centre to which, according to the judicial decision, the centre’s employees are linked, as opposed to other protocols of mechanical restraint of the Andalusian Regional Government or the one referred to by the Ombudsman. The Court concludes that the mechanical restraint was carried out in accordance with protocol 9 of the Oria centre and therefore the perpetration of the offence is not accredited”.
“We found a report from the IMLA which refers to the risk of so-called asphyxia by restriction or positional asphyxia, explaining the degree of restriction in the position in which the person is restrained and concludes that it is much higher if it is in prone position (face down) than supine position (face up), which can be aggravated by manoeuvres such as applying pressure on the hands, feet, knees on the back… which make breathing mobility difficult. which hinder respiratory mobility”; the report concludes “due to the risk of mortality associated with it, it is internationally considered that the prone position should not be used in the restraint of agitated subjects or, if it has been adopted initially, it should not be maintained over time…”.
“Well, we agree with the Public Prosecutor’s Office that the existence of this protocol in your case does not exonerate the person who drew it up or who imposed it and who in your case complied with it knowing or should have known that it does not reflect the minimum standards of safety for physical integrity in the case of mechanical restraint in prone position. This could be a cause for the exclusion of the guilt of the person who carries out the provisions of the protocol or by order of a superior, especially if it is a worker who is unaware that the order is contrary to law”.
“Given that the execution of this manoeuvre resulted in the death of the aforementioned minor, the manoeuvre must have been carried out incorrectly, so there was recklessness on the part of those who carried it out, a recklessness that resulted in death”.
Therefore, the Court agreed to uphold the appeal lodged by the legal representation of Alanti Kaddoua, mother of the deceased boy who had visited him the day before his death.