The sub-inspector in charge had staged another robbery the day before on another floor
MADRID, 18 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Court of Instruction number 26 of Madrid has agreed in a car to send to trial six agents of the National Police who agreed on March 22, 2021 to force a house on Velázquez street by the slip method to dissolve a party illegal that took place in the midst of a pandemic.
This case occurred one day after the events that led to another court case and that will be tried against six agents of the National Police for the crime of trespassing on Lagasca street in the capital.
It so happens that three agents coincide in the two operations, including the sub-inspector in charge of the device of both interventions.
Now, the judge has issued an order, to which Europa Press had access, in which the transformation of the proceedings into a procedure before the jury court is agreed.
The magistrate understands that the facts pursued may constitute a crime of trespassing and the six agents of the National Police Corps who participated in the operation would have participated against him.
To do this, it summons the defendants, the injured parties and the other parties to the appearance on November 3 in order to specify the accusation, request dismissal or request investigation proceedings.
After the agents entered the apartment on Velázquez Street, in the Salamanca district, on the day of the events, they proceeded to arrest two young people, who sued the police. The defense is led by the lawyer Juan Gonzalo Ospina, who also represents the residents of the battering ram case related to the Lagasca street flat.
The complaint fell to the Court of Instruction number 26 of Madrid, whose head agreed to file the case. It was then that the lawyer Juan Gonzalo Ospina filed an appeal before the Provincial Court of Madrid, which resulted in an estimate ordering the magistrates to investigate the police officers.
The magistrates pointed out that from the examination of the testimony of the judicial procedure “it follows that there was no consent on the part of the now plaintiff with a lease contract in his name with respect to the indicated address.”
“The decision to enter the property was made in the absence of a response to the orders of the agents and the warnings that were repeatedly carried out, which is why the access door to the home was opened by the slip method without causing any harm,” they said.
