This text has been automatically translated, it may contain errors or inaccuracies.

VITORIA

Favorite
Remove from my list

The Supreme Court has refused to try the case of the Mitika Chamber of Vitoria before a popular jury

The Provincial High Court of Álava proved the defendant's defence and the Public Prosecutor's Office right, believing that the facts were better suited to a crime of injury, together with reckless homicide, which would prevent the case from being tried before a popular jury.

20250225202221_mitika-diskoteka_

Vitoria-Gasteiz Mitika discotheque. Stock image taken from a EITB Media video.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by thefamilyof\u00A0Kerman in connection with the crime committed in the Mitica Chamber of Vitoria-Gasteiz\ u00A0, whose family objected to the decision of the Court of Álava  by ruling that the case against the janitor accused of the death of the young man should continue asapreliminary proceeding and not be tried before a popular court , as initially decided by the Court of Investigation.

In February 2025,the young man died as a result of an altercation at the gates of the discotheque Mitika, for which a doorman from the premises was arrested and imprisoned on chargesof murder, but was subsequently provisionally released.

Examining magistrate No. 3 of Vitoria-Gasteiz decided to try the case against the concierge before a popular juryfor"a crime of homicide." However, the defendant's defence and the prosecution filed an appeal against this decision on the grounds that the facts were best suited to a crime of injury eta to reckless homicide, which would prevent the case from being tried before a popular jury.

The Provincial Court of Álava proved them right in November 2025, overturned the previous decision and ordered the proceedings to continue as preliminary proceedings, that is, without a popular jury, and ordered the provisional release of the accused on bail.

The victim's family appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that theintentional murder was and should therefore be tried before a popular jury. They also criticized the fact that the Court rejected intentionality without judging the case.

On the other hand, the Court found that the family went beyond what was at this stage of the proceedings, as it began to examine the merits of the case. The Supreme Court has not considered these arguments and has concluded that the Court's order cannot be appealed in cassation. 

It therefore rejects the appeal of the Kerman family and clarifies that this decision does not violate the right to effective judicial protection, since the law provides for other means in such cases.

You might like

Load more