A 28-year-old man investigated in connection with the forest fire in Las Peñas de Riglos, Huesca, has been remanded in provisional prison without bail by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción número 3 de Huesca. According to court documents accessed by the Spanish news agency EFE and corroborated by reports from Cadena SER and Informativos Telecinco, investigators placed the suspect directly at the origin point of the blaze, which has already consumed nearly 17,000 hectares.
Surveillance Footage and Technical Evidence
The decision to order provisional detention hinges heavily on technical documentation and video surveillance supplied by the Servicio de Protección de la Naturaleza (SEPRONA) and the Unidad Central Operativa de Medio Ambiente (UCOMA). According to the judicial auto, these agencies provided recordings that place the suspect “in the exact spot” where technical teams established the fire began.
Investigators from the UCOMA have ruled out a natural origin for the fire. The judicial resolution notes an absence of atmospheric lightning strikes in the vicinity during the relevant timeframe and confirms that nearby electrical infrastructure showed no anomalies. Consequently, technical evaluations point toward the direct application of flame onto natural combustible material as the probable ignition cause, although the technical reports stop short of definitively asserting that the suspect executed the ignition.
Suspect Actions and Subsequent Conduct
Beyond positioning the suspect at the initial ignition zone, the court’s auto details specific actions captured on camera immediately following the outbreak of the fire. Footage incorporated into the judicial proceedings shows the suspect crouching in the specific zone where the flames sparked. Approximately one minute later, a separate surveillance camera captured him handling a mobile phone in a nearby open area.
Despite this proximity to the unfolding emergency, the first call to the company manager was not attempted until three minutes after the fire’s origin, and that initial call ultimately failed due to a lack of mobile coverage. The court noted that prior to this attempt, two colleagues had already arrived at the scene aboard a truck. The magistrate highlighted that the suspect’s apparent passivity only ended with the arrival of these third parties, observing that no effective steps were taken to extinguish the flames or issue an immediate alarm.
Contradictions and Witness Discrepancies
The judicial resolution outlines “significant contradictions” between the physical evidence and the explanations provided by the suspect during court appearances. While the individual acknowledged familiarity with the location of fire extinguishers and emergency protocols, the court records confirm he failed to use any of them.
Furthermore, the magistrate challenged the suspect’s stated rationale for being in the area. The suspect claimed he was gathering construction waste to place into nearby sacks; however, ocular inspections conducted by authorities found neither the waste materials nor any sacks at the location. During subsequent proceedings, the suspect did concede that the ignition focus was situated very close to his physical position at the time.
In an exculpatory statement noted in the resolution, the detained man claimed he later observed the company manager picking up aerosols and glass fragments in a burned container roughly an hour after the fire broke out, though the resolution states this claim currently lacks objective corroboration.
Grounds for Provisional Detention
The presiding magistrate ruled that the gathered evidence allows for the attribution of the crime of forest fire to the suspect on an “indiciary” basis, while noting that ongoing inquiries must still clarify whether he acted alone or if third parties intervened.
The imposition of provisional detention without bail was justified primarily by an “evident risk of flight.” The suspect had arrived in a hostel in Murillo de Gállego in mid-July for labor purposes. Authorities emphasized that he possesses no properties or any other link to Spain, holding a foreign passport. Compounding this lack of roots, the gravity of the consequences and the ongoing nature of the investigation—which still requires supplementary technical reports—convinced the court that release could lead to the concealment, alteration, or destruction of sources of evidence.
