By Ariadna Guerrero Aragón.
The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that the prison administration incurs subsidiary civil liability for severe damages suffered in violent altercations inside cells if they result from a failure in its duty to adequately assess prisoners’ profiles in order to prevent physical aggression between prisoners.
In June 2026, the Spanish Supreme Court clarified the State’s duty of care in correctional facilities, declaring the prison administration subsidiarily liable for severe damages resulting from violent crimes committed by prisoners against their cellmates (Ruling STS 436/2026, 25 June 2026). The court ruled that the administration breaches its institutional obligations when it fails to conduct an adequate, preventive assessment of prisoners’ profiles and risks before pairing them in cells.
The judgment stemmed from a case that arose at Sevilla prison (Centro Penitenciario Sevilla II), where a prisoner, who was serving a sentence of 18 years for “violent offences” and had “active cases relating to multiple offences and numerous incidents in various prisons, […] a long history of transfers between different prisons […] and has been disciplined for misconduct, smuggling in prohibited items, disobeying prison staff, and assaulting and coercing other inmates”, attacked and strangled his cellmate, who was serving a “short-term sentence of one year and three months for a property offence”.
The Supreme Court held that that accommodating individuals with significantly different behavioural and risk profiles in the same cell may constitute a breach of the duty of “adequate selection” (selección adecuada) required by Article 19 of the General Penitentiary Law (LOGP) and Article 13 of the Prison Regulation. Quoting the ECtHR judgment S.P. and Others v. Russia, the Supreme Court stressed that assessing the risk to prisoners’ physical and psychological integrity and well-being “is crucial to ensuring that predators and potential victims are not housed together” (§ 19 of the judgment, quoting § 100 of S.P v. and others Russia).
In particular, the court endorsed the lower courts’ finding that the prison authorities had failed to comply with this duty because they had not properly assessed “neither the behavioural background nor the length of the sentences imposed” when deciding that both individuals should share a cell. It further held that the available prison records, combined with the administration’s failure to explain the reasons for selecting the two to share a cell, made it possible to establish that the administration had “breached the specific duty of adequate selection incumbent upon it”.
The European Prison Litigation Network (EPLN) and its members and partners monitor developments in domestic prison law across Europe and provide concise analyses of the most significant changes affecting prisoners’ rights at national level. These updates are intended to support practitioners in identifying emerging European trends, drawing on comparative experiences, and strengthening their legal practice and advocacy in defence of prisoners’ rights.
Funded by the Robert Carr Fund. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the Robert Carr Fund, which cannot be held responsible for them.
