THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION EMMITED BY THE NATIONAL COURT BUT A PERSONNEL AND INDEPENDENT

WORK

NATIONAL COURT CENTRAL INVESTIGATIVE COURT ONE SUMMARY 27/2007

INDICTMENT

In Madrid on October 4, 2011.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

FIRST .- In proceedings in the cause procedure is established that, during the military occupation of Iraq by U.S. and allies, after the U.S. and British troops crossed the border with Kuwait (March 20, 2003) and make some inroads into Baghdad for the April 7 - on the morning of April 8, 2003, the 3rd Infantry Division U.S. Army crossed the western Baghdad to stand on the banks of the Tigris River. On the morning of that day, the tanks of the 64th Armored Regiment, 4th Battalion, Alpha Company belonging to the said Division stood at one end of the bridge Al Jumhuriya (as indicated in the map below). Fired from the same government buildings and other Iraqi military positions. Several days before the start of the occupation most of the international media were staying at the hotel "Palestine" in Baghdad (one of the tallest buildings and landmarks of the city), where he had moved requested by U.S. Pentagon. Te hotel was situated in the east of the Tigris River, where were most of the residential areas of Baghdad and, therefore, inhabited by civilians. On the other hand, the headquarters of Arab television station Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi, located in residential buildings, were located in the other bank of the Tigris and east of the bridge to Jumhuriya. Both Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV had reported on the Pentagon previously to the invasion their exact location, also marking their locations with Press signs grades Not awared of any other places with media work activity hosted.

SECOND .- Te referred tanks were around 1,700 meters far away from the Palestine hotel and about 300 meters from the Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi headquarters. By this, the media could well see, flm, broadcast and report on the activity of the cars. One of the tasks assigned to that division was to prevent the international media to report on ongoing military operations in the capture of Baghdad. To this objective, the 3rd Division had previously bombed the headquarters of the cited Arab televisions (one of them, Al Jazeera, just when two people were trying to reposition the cameras at the top), and then early in the morning, shoot with the cars referred to this buildings (the camera on the roof of the Abu Dhabi location was directly strafed), making then that they could not record what was happening, or what would happen and then, thereby emit.Such attacks, besides extensive damage, caused one death (the journalist Tarek Ayyoub) and two wounded in the headquarters of Al Jazeera. Ten, to complete the plan, about 11:00 hours approximately, the american tank “Abrams M1”, belonging to the company “A”, fred a 120 mm against the Palestine Hotel, at the height of the plant ffteen. Spanish journalist from the television Telecinco, Jose Manuel Couso Permuy, who was flming from room 1403, was hit by shrapnel from the explosion of the projectile, and died a few hours after at the Ibn Nafs Hospital in Baghdad. In that attack was also killed a reporter for Reuters (Taras Protsyuk), which was on the top foor and at least three other journalists (Samia Najul, Paul Pasquale and Faleh Kheibar) were seriously injured . Te referred car had elements of vision that permitted to see very clearly the people who were in windows and balconies on the hotel and the objects they carried.

THIRD .- Te person who gave the direct order to fre at the hotel was Lieutenant Colonel Philip de Camp, commanded No 64 Armored Regiment of the Tird Armored Division, U.S. Army Infantry, who relayed the order to Captain Philip Wolford, commander of the Armored Unit. He materially authorized who fred the shot, Sergeant Tomas Gibson, a member of the Company ‘A’ of No 64 Armored Regiment. It is unclear which American higher authority (military or political) planned the operation to prevent the media reports, although it could be given for implementation to the General Headquarters Chief and Commander of the 3rd Division Buford. BLOUNT, and successively to the 2nd Brigade of the Division, Colonel David. PERKINS.

LEGAL REASONING

FIRST .- As stated in the indictment dated May 21, 2009, our Criminal Code, Chapter III of Title XXIV (Crimes against International Community), deals with crimes against persons and property protected in case of armed confict. Te precepts contained in it are the result of a process of internalization of conventional norms originally encountered in the feld of international law within the Law of War and led to the “humanization” of the painful situation created by war. Within that Law of War, distinguishes between ius ad bellum and ius in bello. Te frst is whether it is lawful under some conditions the use of military force to -war right-(issue does not afect the present case), while the ius in bello -right in war-concerns a set of standards (as noted by the Supreme Court, are norms of international humanitarian law) that, given the existence of an armed confict, whether just or unjust, must observe the belligerents, especially with certain people and places. Tis ius is based on the principle of necessity: it is lawful only what is necessary to achieve the objective of the war (Grotius). So, in the case, it can be said that was not lawful occupation of Iraq (the recourse to war), since neither were no weapons of mass destruction or the Iraqi regime protected terrorists or gave cover to members of Al Qaeda, or Niger nuclear material purchased, but, as it is said, this is a question that can not be taken into account in this case. Yes, however, for regard to ius in bello and relating to the case, what will be said, obviously it was unlawful to attack or terrorize the civilian population (journalists) to achieve the objective of the war: Te said Chapter III covers the most serious violations of fundamental rules of the ius in bello, which aren't other than those specifed in Article 608 of the Penal Code (Geneva Conventions, Protocols and the Hague Convention). From this article is understood that protected persons are: 1 .- Te

wounded, sick and shipwrecked. 2 .- Te medical and religious personnel. 3 .- Te prisoners of war.4 .- Te civil population. 5 .- Tose who do not participate in hostilities. Article 608.3 states: for the purposes of this chapter, shall be protected: civilian population and civilian persons protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949 or by the Additional Protocol I of 8 June 1977 . Te journalists are considered civilians. Tere is therefore no doubt that Mr Couso was protected person. Article 611.1 of the Penal Code punishes with imprisonment from 10 to 15 years, without detriment to the penalty applicable for the results produced, which at the time of armed confict or order made or indiscriminate or excessive attacks or do object civilians from attacks, reprisals or acts or threats of violence intended to spread terror. Tat article 611.1 of the Penal Code prohibits and punishes: a) Carrying out indiscriminate attacks. b) excessive attacks on the civilian population. c) Specifc attacks on the civilian population. d) Te retribution. e) Te acts of violence f )Treats of violence in order to threaten the population. Tere is therefore, special protection for the civilian population: any attack (be indiscriminate, excessive or be specifc) as threats of violence in order to threaten the population is illegitimate, is prohibited and is punishable by law. Tis follows from that article, which takes up and develops the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977 (referred to in Article 608). Te Protocol also establishes a fundamental principle: the disputing parties are obliged always to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives (Article 48). Even if you are questioning the principle of distinction, they could do based on the precautionary principle, also refected in that Protocol, which requires that the attack is canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not military or has special protection, or is expected to cause incidental attack killed or wounded civilians, damage to civilian objects, or both, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; adding notice shall be given in due time and efective means of attacks which may afect the civilian population, unless circumstances prevent it. Even lacks the principle of proportionality of the same Protocol, which considers the attack as indiscriminate (and agrees not to decide, suspended or terminated) when it may be expected that it will cause incidental death or injury among civilians, damage to civilian objects, or both. It is clear, therefore, that in no way U.S. Forces could attack the hotel and the people who were there, in that it prohibits and punishes the attacks on the civilian population based on the principles of distinction and

proportionality caution. And if the hotel became a military objective, according to these principles, neither could attack in the form occurred. (Te same Minister for Defence, Mr Trillo, aware of such obvious principles, stated that “if in the Hotel were fedallines or any equipment of the Iraqi Information Ministry, this did not justify the grave mistake that caused the death of Mr. Couso”). SECOND .- Te U.S. Military forces were aware that the Palestine Hotel was, and was in civilian area and could not be a military target, and that also was occupied by civilians and journalists, as follows from the testimony and documentation procedure in the case:– Te Pentagon advised the journalists to move to the hotel – since days before the events moved to the hotel and some were already from March 19– Te broadcast mediat informed the embassies, Pentagon andWashington the GPS position of the Hotel, – Te soldiers themselves had a list of prohibited between whom it was the mentioned Hotel, which was confrmed by a colonel of the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, and a journalist who was in the 3rd

Division.– Te Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that he knew the hotel was packed with journalists.– Te expert report of Mr. Gonzalo Jar which includes statements, reports and situations,– RPSF interview Colonel Chief of the Brigade that attacked the hotel, Colonel Perkins, says he knew he was full of journalists. – Te Pentagon itself, through its spokesman, admitted the previous acknowledgment.– Te day before the attack some journalists hosted in the hotel were greeting the U.S. Military from it. Added to this it is stated by the witnesses of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi in this court confrmed that U.S. Authorities knew where the media were staying.On the other hand, there is no basis for concluding that it had fred a “scout” shooter or shooters group of enemies. Moreover, the Chamber 2a Supreme Court in its order of July 13, 2010 states that (Eighth Ground) “there is no indication that hotel was being used as” shield “to commit an action against the defendants ... there was no trace of visual error on the presence of a sniper or scout in the hotel. Nor that there was fre on the tank in 35 minutes before, or any anti-tank artillery, able to reach it from the hotel, taking into account that was over 1500 meters away, and a grenade launcher not reach more than 650 mts. And if any such risk, the journalists in the Hotel must have been warned. Moreover, if one of the many versions ofered by U.S. Authorities saying that the scout or sniper was on the roof, it is not understood why the plant 15 was shoot when there were fve foors above.

Tis decline the reason given by U.S. Central Command to close the fle, that is, he shot in self defense ... duly fred into an alleged shooter or group of enemy shooters in a measured response proportionate and justifed and that this action is fully consistent with the rules of combat. Te given reason is based on that, however the company was under heavy attack Alpha enemy and it was detected by an enemy radio that the company was being guarded by an enemy observer located across the Tigris River and was directing the forces and fre enemy toward its position, by observing the hotel some people were perceived as a shooter or group of shooters on the balcony of a room and since they saw “fashes” of light, consistent with enemy fre, shot the projectile. He adds that after shooting the enemy fre against the company ceased. As stated, this information is confusing, because in the beginning speaks of “observer enemy” and then “shooter or shooters group.” It also contradicts the testimony of witnesses, direct-Ms. Rodríguez Francisco, Mr. Sistiaga, Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Miguel Hernandez Quiñonero (plus many testimonies of journalists who are documented, as the witness of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi), who in the expansion of his remarks, said that the tank was stopped during the last hour and received no shot, which was preceded by a dull moment, there was nothing to record, it was a morning fairly quiet and so they were all leaning out the window, it was the most quiet time, that there was not shot on the previous three quarters of an hour that the tank was stopped ... Obviously this contradicts that there was this strong enemy fre against the company that says the “report”. On the other hand, as stated, it was known that the Palestine Hotel was in civilian area that housed the press, that journalists themselves being used binoculars and cameras with or without “fash”, a fact easily guessed by the accused. But even assuming that Sergeant Tomas Gibson unaware of the condition of the hotel and accommodation of the press, is more questionable than his superior wasn't informed and much more Lieutenant Colonel. Moreover, the Sergeant said that ten minutes happened since he reported such incident to his superiors, so that mediate long enough to confrm it and so distinguish whether they were civilians or combatants. Added to this is that in that time they could have warned the journalists, since, for obvious and because of being media, could communicated immediately (moreover, the former Army sergeant U.S. Adrienne Kinne, Military Intelligence dessigned, said that they used to listen the telephone conversations of journalists, thus could contact them immediately to “warn”). Tey could have ordered the evacuation of the hotel. What is more, the visual inspection with the witnesses who attended it and the subsequent forensic (judicial and party) and on the occasion of it shows on the contrary to the assertions of Central Command, also taking into account that the vision of day of the events was better than the day of inspection. Te hotel building as it was a hotel according to the label existing, it was perfectly visible and then shooting a missile of the characteristics indicated it is entirely disproportionate to knock out a scout

or sniper. And the expert has shown that the elements of sight of the car could see right the people who might be there including the objects they carried. And, indeed, shortly before the events (according to several video reports proceeding in the proceedings and witness statements), two U.S. Helicopters hovered overhead. It is obvious that they have qualifed vision devices and precision weapons, so that they could see if it was a “scout” or a journalist (videographer, photographer or reporter, and if any one of the frst, it could have killed, without any need to fre the missile. THIRD .- Te facts stated, therefore, as also noted by the Supreme Court in its order of July 13, 2010 which reversed the dismissal declared free by the Criminal Chamber of the Court, may constitute a crime against circumstantial the international community, under Article 611.1 of the Criminal Code in relation to Article 608.3 of the Penal Code, which states protected individuals, be subsumed under the rules of international humanitarian law, in real competition with homicide, defned and penalized Article 138 of the Penal Code, given the excessive and indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the causation of the death of Mr. Couso. Moreover, there is more than circumstantial basis for believing that it is also an act of violence or threats in order to terrorize civilians or journalists: they were terrorizing journalists not to be witness (and, therefore, the international community), the way it was going to be the taking of Baghdad. Circumstantial is confrmed, even by reductio ad absurdum or contradiction, that one of the missions of the 3rd Division was to avoid the media could report what was going to happen in the confict. In fact, the venues where they could fnd the media were only the Palestine Hotel and the buildings occupied by Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi. It has the bombing of the headquarters of TV as the shots of the car to them, all before the fring on the Palestine Hotel, and also confrmed by the respective witnesses who work in them in the statement given on 13 January. Also, both the location of such venues as the hotel was confrmed by this instructor at the step taken in Baghdad on January 28, 2011. Similarly (documentary and testimonial) has not accredited any enemy fre from TV, but it is accredited that such sites were identifed because of the banners hanging from them with the word “TV”. Tis is compounded by evidence of other journalists who confrmed that the attack was premeditated (Ángeles Espinosa, Monica G. Prieto). First the arab headquarters are bombed (one of them, Al Jazeera, just when two people tried to reposition the cameras at the top, resulting in the death of one of them), then the cars get placed on the bridge located between the Hotel and such sites, they shoot at them with great accuracy (the camera is a gunned) with the tank and then a missile is launched at the Palestine Hotel just to the height of the plants where the two journalists were flming. Tis happens almost in three hours. And indeed, it was possible that no report, there is no evidence of images of Baghdad in the next few hours and it is in those moments in which U.S. Troops entered Baghdad and, according to military authorities after the war was “over“. No one, therefore, could refect

the capture of the city until the next day, as there was fear caused, a single camera ready to peer into the windows of the hotel. Tere are signifcant, moreover, the statements of the U.S. Army former sergeant Adrienne Kinne, aimed at Military Intelligence, made on May 13, 2008 in the TV program “Democracy Now” stating that she received an email that pointed the Palestine Hotel as a military objective potential for the army referred, putting this person to her superior her surprise at this since the press was staying, and was replied that "someone at a higher level in the chain of command knew what they were doing."

FOURTH .- Tere are reasonable grounds to have the perpetrators of such criminal ofenses Sergeant THOMAS GIBSON, Captain PHILIP WOLFORD and Lt. Col. PHILIP DE CAMP, given the specifc action of each of the defendants (order, authorization, shot) determined on the basis of their own explanations in the media and documentary work in action. As stated in the facts of this resolution, it is unclear which American higher authority (military or political) planned / ordered the operation to prevent the media from reporting and therefore the bombings and shootings to the media, although, given the chain of command, it obviously had to be superior to the defendants. Tus the order had to come or at least be sent for execution to the Head of the Headquarters and Commander of the 3 rd

Division Buford BLOUNT, and subsequently the Chief of the Division 2nd

Brigade, Colonel David PERKINS, to transmit it to Lt. Col. Philip de Camp. It is therefore appropriate to have them as suspects and not as processed as the argument of the chain of command can not be established by itself, the absence of other data, prima facie. To this end, there rogatory deliver timely, as was done with the process in pursuit of the right to defense in order to inform defendants of new facts and crimes they are charged, they are asking for and receiving statement U.S. Authorities, and by this Court with or without displacement of the same or of the judicial commission.

FIFTH .- From the moment that the Summary be a prima facie case against a certain person, it is processed and sent from declaring that they understand the proceedings in the same manner and form set forth in the Act, in accordance with the requirement of the Article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

SIXTH .- According to Article 116 of the Criminal Code, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable and the liability of civil responsibility that may be direct or subsidiary must be secured with deposit or seizure of property, in accordance with Articles 589 and following of the Criminal Procedure Act.

SEVEN .- Te U.S. Central Command closed the case on the grounds that they fred in self defense ... duly fred into an alleged shooter or group of

enemy shooters in a measured response proportionate and justifed and that this action is fully consistent with the rules of combat. Obviously, this contradicts the arguments and concluded in this case and with it all the report submitted by the U.S. Justice Department dated June 26, 2006 (based on judicial assistance which they rejected). Te report noted that there had been a “thorough and detailed investigation” into the incident. Obviously, in view of the proceedings, such research can not have that capacity, it certainly has not had many accounts the procedure in the case and expert reports and other steps taken, even with the testimony of Mrs. Sergeant . Kinne, which would certainly contribute important information in the American record. Well, inasmuch as in the aforementioned report stated (pages 837-845) that the United States are responsible for investigating and, if necessary, to sue (prosecute) any complaint relating to alleged abuses by Armed Forces members in the conduct of military operations in conficts in which are involved, it is appropriate to inform the Department this resolution and to proceed accordingly, especially if Spanish invesstigation is whether judicial and that the one held in the United States had no such character (would be purely administrative or military), so it would already be in a position to initiate such legal action. In efect, this Court would refer if requested testimony of the proceedings. Having regard to the said legal rules and other general and relevant for application I DECREE: DECLARE process in this case to Sergeant

THOMAS GIBSON, Captain PHILIP WOLFORD and Lieutenant Colonel PHILIP DE CAMP, with who will be taken the subsequent proceedings in the manner and form set forth in the law. Defendants are required to set out for the result of the fnancial responsibilities of the case give bail in the sum of one million euros and if unverifed in the twenty-four hours following, then seize sufcient property to cover the amount indicated and proven by law, if not possess, their total or partial insolvency, and Get in on the particular separate piece. Get rid letters rogatory to the U.S. Authorities with a copy of this resolution to notify the Chief of the Headquarters and Commander of the 3rd Division Buford BLOUNT, and the Chief of the Division 2nd Brigade, Colonel David PERKINS of the facts and crimes they are accused, asking them to get declaration and U.S. authorities, and by this Court with or without displacement of the same or of the judicial commission. Refer testimony testimony of this resolution to the U.S. Justice Department to proceed if, as claimed responsibility, and based to the proceedings in this cause, continue or reopen the investigation of the facts. Notify this resolution to the parties in person and the public prosecutor,

warning that it may be appealed against reform and a subsidiary of appeal in fact, within three days of notifcation of this decision. Tus, for this car, I ordered and signed by the Illustrious. Mr. D. Santiago J. Pedraz Gómez, Judge of the Central Court of Instruction Number One, I swear. DILIGENCE .- met agreed then, I attest.