The Minister of the Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, referred this Tuesday to the ruling of the Supreme Court that has considered illegal the return to Morocco, in August 2021, of 45 minors who had entered Ceuta irregularly in May of that year. anus.
The minister has expressed his "respect" for the sentence and has argued that "the authorities competent in the matter acted at all times with the full conviction of complying with the legal system and always under the principle of the best interests of the minor."
Sources from the ministry have ruled out assuming any political responsibility after the sentence.
In his statements, Grande-Marlaska has made reference to the “competent authorities”, minimizing the role that his department had in this action.
It was the Ministry of the Interior that negotiated with Morocco the return of the minors and that coordinated and gave instructions to the city Government Delegation and the local Government to carry out the returns.
These communications were made through emails from the ministry and, although they were not signed, the delegate of the Government of Ceuta herself assured, in one of her appearances before the court, that, although the request to return the minors It came from the Government of Ceuta, all the efforts were promoted by the Ministry of the Interior.
The then Government delegate, Salvadora Mateos, said that a meeting took place in Madrid on July 28, a couple of weeks before the expulsions took place.
“He took [the matter] personally to Madrid to speak with the minister, the ministry contacted Morocco at that time and they saw fit to carry out this agreement,” she said.
More information
Latest political news, live
The agreement to which the Government delegate referred was the text on which the legality of the expulsions was based.
This is an agreement between Spain and Morocco, in force since 2007, which establishes the minimum bases for returning unaccompanied foreign minors.
The agreement, however, does not go into detail on how it should be done and, according to the rulings of the different bodies that have studied the case, the agreement does not exempt compliance with national and international legislation.
The Immigration Law makes it clear that to return foreign minors, several procedures must be followed, including opening an individual administrative procedure for each affected person, collecting information about them and their family environment, holding a hearing with the minor and making a claim. the intervention of the Prosecutor's Office.
None of this was done, as confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Grande-Marlaska assured this Tuesday that the interest of the minor was “the basic principle” that guided the operation.
“And in that sense, I repeat, I am absolutely convinced that the competent authorities, in this case as in others, acted with full conviction to adjust their actions to the legal system and inspired at all times by the interest of the minor,” he added.
In the study of the case, the Prosecutor's Office appeared to provide its analysis of the procedure.
The public ministry maintained that the way of acting “determined a danger to the physical and moral integrity of the minors, without adjusting to the guiding criterion of the best interests of the minor.”
The Prosecutor's Office reinforced its thesis with a presentation of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on the fundamental right to physical and moral integrity, with special reference to what it requires in terms of protection of minors.
In the ruling, the Supreme Court considers that the “excellent presentation” of the Prosecutor's Office “does not admit of a reply.”
It is clear, says the Supreme Court, “that physical and moral integrity is also violated when a person is placed in serious danger of suffering a physical or mental illness;
something that in the present case cannot be denied that occurred.”
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_