Offences beyond Spanish waters: when Spanish courts may investigate

The alleged events and the Arrecife decision

According to the order, the proceedings began after a woman reported on arrival in the Canary Islands that she had suffered acts of sexual violence during a crossing that started in Agadir. She placed the alleged events on the second and third days of a three- or four-day journey to Arrecife. The order makes no finding about the truth of the account or the involvement of the persons under investigation.

The complainant gave a statement, medical examinations and expert reports were carried out, and three suspects were identified. The duty court ordered their pre-trial detention on 19 September 2026, and the court that took over the case confirmed it on the 21st. After the prosecution service requested their release because Spain lacked jurisdiction, they were released on 24 September.

Court Order 588/2026 of 28 September found that Spain lacked jurisdiction to continue the investigation and closed the proceedings in Spain. The decision rested on two facts: the alleged episodes were placed beyond the twelve nautical miles of Spain's territorial sea, and there was no evidence that the vessel flew the Spanish flag.

The court ordered the evidence to be preserved and a certified record to be sent to the Ministry of Justice for transmission to Morocco and to the authorities of the countries of nationality of the persons involved. The transmission does not declare any State competent: each must assess jurisdiction under its own law.

When Spain has criminal jurisdiction

Article 23(1) of the Spanish Judiciary Act gives Spanish courts jurisdiction over offences committed in Spanish territory or on board Spanish ships or aircraft, subject to applicable treaties. The exact location, the vessel's flag and the time of the events therefore matter; the port where the journey ends or the report is made does not, by itself, change where the offence was allegedly committed.

Spanish law also permits certain offences committed abroad to be prosecuted where an expressly defined connection exists. For conduct covered by the Istanbul Convention, Article 23(4)(l) requires, in summary, that the proceedings concern a Spanish national or a foreign national habitually resident in Spain, or that the victim was Spanish or habitually resident in Spain at the time and the suspect is present here.

The order found that none of those connections existed: neither the complainant nor the suspects were Spanish nationals, and no prior habitual residence in Spain was established. Their later arrival in the Canary Islands did not turn that presence into the habitual residence required at the time of the alleged assault. The court also examined Article 44 of the Istanbul Convention and found no additional basis for Spanish jurisdiction in this particular case.

Closing a case for lack of jurisdiction is not an acquittal

Jurisdiction determines which State may investigate and try a case; guilt concerns whether the offence and a person's involvement have been proved. Where jurisdiction is absent, a Spanish court cannot decide the merits, even if it has carried out urgent steps to protect people and preserve evidence.

The Arrecife court's decision therefore does not say that the complaint was false or that the suspects were innocent or guilty. The order closed the case ‘without ruling on the merits’. Their release did not decide those issues either: a precautionary measure cannot remain in place in proceedings that the Spanish court has no jurisdiction to continue.

The order allowed a reconsideration appeal within three days. As the available official sources do not state whether an appeal was filed, the decision should not be described as final. There is no dissenting opinion because the order was made by a judge sitting alone.

Practical implications for complainants and suspects

Where a possible offence occurs during a sea crossing, flight or international journey, it is advisable to record as soon as possible the approximate time, position or route, the vessel's name and flag, the ports of departure and arrival, and the nationality or residence of those involved. These details may determine which country has jurisdiction and which cooperation channel should be used.

The absence of Spanish jurisdiction does not make reporting the matter in the Canary Islands pointless. Early action may allow medical assistance, collection of samples, identification of witnesses and preservation of messages, photographs or navigation data. The authorities may then transmit the report and evidence through international cooperation mechanisms.

From the defence perspective, jurisdiction should be reviewed from the outset, especially where the alleged events took place outside Spain. The location, flag, nationality, habitual residence and the legal basis relied on should all be checked. Challenging jurisdiction does not prevent the defence from also disputing whether the event occurred, responsibility for it or the validity of investigative steps if proceedings continue before a competent authority.

Criminal-law advice in Tenerife

If you need to report in the Canary Islands events that occurred during an international journey, or have been summoned as a suspect in connection with a possible offence committed outside Spain, the firm can examine jurisdiction, precautionary measures, evidence preservation and the applicable cooperation mechanisms.

You can request a consultation with Abogado Juan in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, by phone or video call. This content is informational, concerns a specific court order, does not replace individual legal advice and does not predict the outcome of any proceedings.