.svg)
Article 17 of the Spanish Constitution establishes that everyone has the right to liberty and that no one may be deprived of it except in the cases and in the manner provided by law. This right includes specific guarantees, particularly in the context of detention, such as the right to be informed of the facts and grounds for the detention (Art. 17.1), the right to legal assistance and access to essential procedural elements (Art. 17.3), and the right to habeas corpus as a mechanism of judicial oversight (Art. 17.4).
The Court found that the appellant had only been informed of the existence of a search and arrest warrant, without any further details regarding her alleged involvement in the events. The section of the police record concerning access to the essential elements of the proceedings had not been completed, and the defense lawyer formally requested access to the content of the report, which was denied without justification or reasoned explanation.
The Court noted: “The appellant was deprived of the minimum necessary information required to understand the facts with which she was associated and the role allegedly attributed to her in the offence under investigation.”
One of the most significant doctrinal contributions of the judgment concerns the definition of the scope of the right to access procedural elements during police custody. The Court clarified that such access is not equivalent to a full transfer of the case file, but is limited, instrumental, and functional to the right of defense. As stated in the judgment:“Its purpose is to provide the factual and evidentiary elements that support the objective and subjective imputation [...] enabling the accused and their counsel to challenge the deprivation of liberty in an informed manner.”
The objective is not to afford exhaustive knowledge of the proceedings, but to ensure that the detainee has sufficient information to challenge their detention on a verifiable factual basis. This right must be expressly requested—it does not operate ex officio—but once requested, its arbitrary denial constitutes a serious infringement of the right of defense and undermines subsequent judicial oversight.
The judgment stresses that access must be effectively granted, whether through a copy of the police report, the exhibition of documents, or any other means that ensures their integrity. The police’s refusal to allow such access frustrates the full exercise of the rights recognized in Article 17 CE, leaving the detainee defenseless against the coercive powers of the State.
The second axis of the violation relates to the judicial response to the habeas corpus petition. The court rejected the request without hearing the detainee, without personally verifying her condition, and without taking any steps beyond requesting a report from the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
According to settled case law of the Constitutional Court, particularly Judgment 85/2024, this type of resolution directly contradicts the essential content of the right to habeas corpus. As stated in the legal grounds of the judgment:“The inadmissibility or summary dismissal of the petition on the merits [...] without prior presentation of the person deprived of liberty before a judge and without hearing them constitutes a violation of the fundamental right by the judicial authority.”
Judicial oversight cannot be reduced to an indirect documentary review; it must entail the appearance and effective hearing of the detainee, as a means of verifying the actual conditions of the deprivation of liberty.
Judgment 86/2025 forcefully reinforces the constitutional doctrine on police detentions and the role of habeas corpus as a safeguard against arbitrary or defective detentions. The Court reaffirms that access to the essential elements of the police report is neither a privilege nor a discretionary option for law enforcement, but a procedural guarantee of the right of defense that must be effectively granted when requested by the detainee or their legal counsel. Arbitrarily denying such access deprives the affected individual of the minimum tools necessary to contest the legality of their detention and violates Article 17 CE in both its informational and defensive dimensions.
Moreover, the judgment condemns the judicial practice of summarily rejecting habeas corpus petitions without a prior hearing. Such judicial conduct is incompatible with the substantive content of Article 17.4 CE, which requires the judge to take an active and personal role in verifying the legality and conditions of the deprivation of liberty.
In short, the ruling sends a clear message: every deprivation of liberty must be surrounded by effective—not merely symbolic—guarantees. Accurate information, access to the police report, genuine legal assistance, and effective judicial control are not secondary formalities but fundamental pillars of the rule of law. Their absence renders any detention an intolerable violation of fundamental rights, warranting redress and remedy by the Constitutional Court.
.svg)
