The Ombudsman still does not consider the explanations of the Ministry of Interior to the massacre of Melilla. In a letter, the institution that directs Angel Gabilondo has reminded the holder of the portfolio, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, what are your duties and what recommendations you must follow to be held accountable for the tragedy. According to various NGOs, last June at least 23 migrants died in the Melilla fence at the hands of the police forces, images that he advanced exclusively Public.
Marlaska was pronounced after the prosecution Reclaim all existing files on border crime, by detecting time jumps in the recordings. The minister reiterated, on numerous occasions, that “there were no deaths on Spanish soil.” In this same line were all his statements. The truth is that a journalistic investigation shows that, at least, a person lost his life in the border area controlled by Spain.
The Ombudsman, which had previously requested more details of the massacre, has sent a statement in response to the NGOs that denounced the situation. In the text, he refers to the human rights violations who registered in the Melilla fence and remember the Ministry of Interior the need to prioritize this approach above any geographic or police considerations that may exist.
gabilondo explains that on November 28 he requested more information from the department headed by Marlaska, for considering their justifications meager and not accepting the proposed recommendations. Likewise, he has insisted on the presence of several “requirements that have not yet been answered.” While he waits for new answers, the Ombudsman reiterates the previously expressed legal warnings and emphasizes the right to physical and moral integrity that every person should have guaranteed.
Interior’s brief response
From the Ministry of Interior show their “willingness to study in depth the contributions of the Ombudsman“. They make no mention of Gabilondo’s insistence that the expulsions of Melilla they were illegal. In addition, the team Marlaska take the opportunity to return to the charge with the “non-existence of deceased persons in national territory”, despite the fact that several investigations have shown the opposite.
