Introduction
The ship Prestige was involved in a disaster on November 13, 2002, where it released about 70,000 tonnes of oil into the coast of Spain (Abelard 2014). The ship had a flag of the Bahamas at the time of the disaster. The cause of the disaster was a storm, which led to a hole in the hull of the vessel, and the fuel leaked into the ocean. The fuel polluted the Spanish coast, affecting the coastal ecosystem enormously for a number of months. There were also adverse economic issues caused by the polluted coastline. The effects of the spill also reached the French coast. A Greek captain, Apostolos Mangouras, was in charge of the ship when it experienced the disaster. The ship’s crew was saved by the marine authorities. Mangouras was shipped to A Coruña city in Spain, where he was arrested shortly after (Council of Europe 2004).
Criminal investigations were opened against Captain Mangouras. He was charged for acting in a way that led to a disaster and caused serious pollution to the environment. He was also charged for disobeying the Spanish and French marine authorities to tow the vessel (Abelard, 2014). Mangouras was taken into custody, but a possibility of being released on bail was available. The bail was set at 3 million euros, an amount that was deemed to be too high and irrational by the defendant. The judge who set the bail argued that the environmental damage caused by the spill was too adverse. In addition, the judge supported the high bail by arguing that Captain Mangouras was not a citizen of Spain, and he had no specific ties with the country, thus he was likely to avoid prosecution by leaving Spain.
Main Body
Mangouras’ request for the bail to be reduced to 60,000 euros and his advanced age to be taken into consideration in deciding whether to hold him in the pre-trial custody was rejected. In addition to the argument that the crime was serious in nature and Mangouras was a Greek citizen, the judge also argued that Mangouras needed to remain in custody so that he could appear before trial and give a detailed description of what had transpired before the oil spill disaster occurred. An attempt to overthrow the decision to hold Mangouras in custody was rejected on December 7, 2002 (Council of Europe 2004).
Mangouras made an appeal against the decision to hold him in custody, but it was also rejected on January 3, 2003. The judge maintained that the case was characterised by unusual circumstances and the evidence available was enough to institute criminal charges against Mangouras. The decision to hold Mangouras in custody and the amount of bail required to release him were cited as being final because his offences caused a lot of public outcry.
The Audiencia Provincial noted the provisions of Article 230 of the ‘UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1983’ as the basis for rejecting the appeal. According to the Article, the provision that Captain Mangouras had appealed was only applicable if a foreign vessel polluted the sea outside a territorial boundary, whereby a given amount of money would be imposed as a fine. On the contrary, Mangouras’ case involved serious pollution that happened in territorial waters (Council of Europe 2004).
Following these events, the London P&I Club, the company that insured the ship, intervened on behalf of Mangouras and paid 3 million euros, which led to the release of the captain provisionally. He, therefore, spent a total of 83 days in pre-trial detention. The conditions of the release included a requirement for Mangouras to provide a physical address in Spain. Mangouras was also supposed to be reporting at the police headquarters of the physical address provided. Finally, he was not supposed to leave Spain whatsoever. As a result, his passport was surrendered to the court authorities.
The applicant exercised his right to freedom by filing an amparo appeal, where he wanted the Constitutional Court to rule against the amount of bail fixed because it was excessive and not commensurate with his financial capability. He cited that the excessive bail was a hindrance to his provisional release. Unfortunately, the appeal was thrown out by the Constitutional Court on grounds of being inadmissible. Although the applicant had no previous conviction, his appeal was not strong enough to be admitted by the Constitutional Court.
Mangouras had argued that there was a violation of Article 5, section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, given the heftiness of the amount of bail he was asked to pay and the circumstances of his financial status. The March 2004 application was justifiably thrown out by the Court during a Grand Chamber hearing that happened in January 2009, where the Court found no violation of the cited Article (European Court of Human Rights 2010).
The Court was of the opinion that the Spanish courts had considered the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of Mangouras as a person when fixing the bail. The courts only fixed such a bail to guarantee the captain’s presence during the hearing. Moreover, he was very instrumental in the case, so that he needed to be present in person. Although it was accurate to argue that 3 million euros was a high amount as bail, it was not disproportionate because Mangouras’ case was grave in nature. Moreover, the disaster caused severe damage to the sea ecosystem, besides hurting those who depended on the coastline economically. Additionally, the court sought to safeguard the legal interests in the case by fixing such an amount of bail.
It is only later that the authorities in Spain allowed Mongauras to return to Greece, but on condition that the authorities in Greece would supervise him periodically to ensure that he complied with the conditions of provisional release set in Spain. As a result, Mangouras was instructed to report to a police station near his place of residence after every 14 days. He was also demanded to reside with his children in Greece, or in his home in Athens.
Eleven years later, in 2013, Captain Mangouras was acquitted of any criminal charges related to the pollution and destruction of the environment by the Spanish authorities (The Marine Executive 2013). However, he was convicted of being disobedient to the marine authorities of Spain and France during the events that led to the sinking of the ship Prestige. Others who were acquitted with the captain were the Master of the ship, the Chief Engineer then, and the head of the merchant marine department in Spain during the disaster.
The captain was sentenced to a jail term of nine months, but his age was likely to prevent him from being jailed. Moreover, he had already spent two years under detention before a formal inquiry took place. Additionally, the law in Spain exonerates one from jail term if they are sentenced for less than 24 months and they had no prior criminal record (Abelard 2014).
Foreign seafarers have the right to go back home, unless they face charges that require them to be imprisoned (Murray 2012). The treatment of seafarers in a fair manner is promoted by the International Maritime Organisation to safeguard the vulnerability experienced by seafarers when they are faced with cases that are of high profile, such as mass environmental pollution. Striking a balance between taking legal action against seafarers in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction where they allegedly commit crimes and observing the human rights entitled to them is of great concern. In the case of Mangouras, there was a media and public outcry, as well as political pressure that would easily blind the judges in executing justice.
The case was further complicated by the involvement of different international dimensions, given that Mangouras was a foreigner (Greek) and the ship he captained was also foreign (from the Bahamas). The international law was, therefore, the best instrument to be applied in this case to realise the fairest resolution. It was unfair and unfortunate that Captain Mangouras was detained for almost 3 months and later released with a condition barring him from going back to Greece, his home country.
This violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby all persons are entitled to go back to their home countries (Maritime Accident Case Book 2010). Even though Spain was a sovereign jurisdiction and had the upper hand in instituting criminal proceedings against the Prestige’s captain, the authorities ought to have realised that the international law was to be considered, as Mangouras was a seafarer. Withholding his passport also amounted to a violation of the captain’s human rights.
Conclusion
The ruling of the court that the real cause of the accident could not be pinpointed was flawed, as Captain Mangouras had asserted that the maritime authorities were the real cause of the disaster because they ordered the Prestige into the raging storm. This led to the cracking of the ship’s hull and the subsequent spill of fuel. Convicting the captain of the ship for failure to follow the orders of the marine authorities can only be termed as lamentable.
It acts as wrong precedent in treating ships’ masters as criminals, yet they strive to safeguard the crew, cargo, and the environment whenever they face adverse situations in the sea. The Spanish authorities chose Mangouras as a scapegoat, under the pressure of the public, media, and political voices to find someone liable for the disaster. Justice was miscarried by acquitting Jose Luis Lopez-Sors, the Spanish head of merchant navy during the disaster, yet he was said to have instructed the ship to move into the raging storm when it was already spilling fuel.
Captain Mangouras requested the Spanish marine authorities to allow him to anchor the Prestige about 4 miles off the shore, but his request was declined. He also asked them to give him tugs to hold the ship in position as he waited for the weather to calm down, but the authorities still declined his request. Going with the above findings, justice was miscarried when the courts in Spain failed to convict the Spanish maritime authorities for their direct role in the disaster.
Reference List
Abelard 2014, Captain scapegoat Mangouras and the Prestige oil spill: ten years on. Web.
Council of Europe 2004, Case of Mangouras v Spain. Web.
European Court of Human Rights 2010, Grand Chamber Judgement: Mangouras v. Spain. Web.
Maritime Accident Case Book 2010, Prestige judgement “Flawed – ECHR has badly let down seafarers”. Web.
Murray, O 2012, ‘Fair treatment of seafarers- International law and practice’, Journal of International Maritime Law, vol. 18, pp. 150-164.
The Marine Executive 2013, INTERTANKO: Mixed reactions to Spain’s Capt. Mangouras judgement. Web.