Justice, like life, is not always a straight path. It often takes twists and turns that force us to look into an uncomfortable mirror, a mirror that reflects the paradox of the human condition. The recent Supreme Court ruling, No. 534/2025, has brought the stark reality of the migration tragedy before our eyes: in the hell of a canoe, it is possible to be both victim and executioner at the same time.
The ruling, to which Maspalomas24H has had access, states that "without the intervention of this crew to direct or steer the cayuco, and to maintain order and distribute the essentials, the transfer would not have been possible. By accepting this task in the specific circumstances in which it was offered to them, the crew members assumed the risks that occurred on the specific journey," says the ruling" and that "it is evident that the lives of the people subject to the infraction have been put in danger, or the danger of causing serious injuries subject to the aggravated subtype has been created and the responsibility of the appellants as managers of the trip and direct provokers of the endangerment of the 103 immigrants who were traveling in the cayuco."
The case, which culminated in the Spanish capital with the ruling of the Criminal Chamber, began in the darkness of night off the coast of Senegal. A cayuco, designed to die at sea, set sail on July 11, 2023, with 103 souls on board. A journey of no return, a 12-day voyage, in which hope was a poison that could kill. The proven facts, ratified in the first instance by the Provincial Court of Las Palmas and subsequently by the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, are a snapshot of criminal negligence. The boat, evidently overloaded, lacked the most basic safety measures. There were few lifejackets, insufficient water, and a palpable fear in every wave.
The Prosecutor's Office, acting as public prosecutor, argued that the four employers were co-perpetrators of the crime of migrant smuggling, the aggravated subtype of Article 318 bis.3.b) of the Criminal Code. Its argument was compelling: the employers were the "managers" and "supervisors" of the trip, and assumed the "position of guarantors of their safety." This position, by endangering the lives of 103 people, justified the four-year prison sentence imposed on each of them.
The Supreme Court, with Judge Vicente Magro Servet as its rapporteur, was categorical. In a ruling that sets a crucial precedent, it flatly rejected the defense's argument that the captains acted out of a "state of necessity" and were mere "accomplices." The ruling is clear: "A co-author, and not a mere accomplice, is the participant who acts as manager and overseer of the trip to ensure they reach their destination." The court, composed of Judges Andrés Martínez Arrieta, Antonio del Moral García, Ana María Ferrer García, and Leopoldo Puente Segura, confirmed that the captains were not just any passengers. They were the key cog in the criminal machine.
The Supreme Court not only upheld the sentence, but, in a technical adjustment, reduced it by a single day, to four years less one day in prison. A gesture that, although minimal, underscores the meticulousness of justice. The decision, based on Article 4, Rule 70.1 of the Penal Code, leaves a bitter truth. In the sea of despair, there are no innocents. Only men who, driven by poverty, become cogs in a system that kills.
