The Ministry of the Interior, led by Fernando Grande-Marlaska, awarded on October 5 of last year the purchase of 790 defense pepper sprays for the National Police for an amount of 71,656.20 euros. The operation, revealed by elDiario.es and La Razón, took place weeks before the department approved a new protocol to regulate the use of these devices and only about a month before the controversial police charges recorded during the general strike of November 11. Now, the Government has decided to restrict their use in public order operations while it investigates whether the agents’ interventions respected the principles of necessity and proportionality.
The succession of decisions has opened a debate about the acquisition of police equipment, the instructions for its use, and the responsibility of commanding officers during demonstrations. According to the contract documentation consulted by both newspapers, the Interior justified the purchase by the need to reinforce the protection of officers in situations of violence. However, after complaints about the use of pepper spray against protesters, the Ministry has announced that it will modify the protocol to prevent these aerosols from being used in protest-control devices.
Interior bought 790 pepper sprays for more than 71,600 euros for the National Police
The award was formalized on the 5th of October 2026, the same day on which the unions announced the call for the general strike of November 11. The contract includes the acquisition of 790 defense pepper sprays of the MK9 model, intended to reinforce the equipment of operational units of the National Police, especially the Police Intervention Units (UIP) and the Prevention and Reaction Units (UPR).
According to the documentation that elDiario.es had access to, the purchase amount totals 71,656.20 euros and the delivery deadline for the devices extends until January 2027. This latest detail is relevant because it does not allow us to claim that the pepper sprays used during the 11N charges came from that specific batch, even though the images disseminated from the interventions point to the use of devices of the same model.
In the explanatory memorandum, the Police defended the need to acquire these aerosols for security reasons. The document presented pepper spray gas as a resource for protection and deterrence that could prevent direct physical confrontations and reduce the need to use other coercive means.
The material contains oleoresin of capsicum (OC), a compound derived from hot peppers that causes intense irritation in the eyes, skin, and respiratory pathways. Interior described it in the documentation as a means of low danger, an assessment that must be distinguished from its possible health effects: exposure can cause injuries or complications, especially in vulnerable people or under certain conditions of use.
The protocol of October 19 expanded the possibilities of use
Two weeks after the award, Interior approved on October 19 an update to the police protocol in force since 2013. The new regulation established the conditions for possession, handling, and use of the defense sprays and contemplated their individual distribution among certain agents.
Until then, according to the documentation published by La Razón, these devices were used fundamentally as collective equipment. The new framework allowed for expanding their availability in order to respond to attacks or situations of active resistance that put the integrity of the agents, third parties, or public safety at risk.
The instruction also modified the conditions for use in enclosed spaces, removing a previous restriction, although it maintained the requirements of safety and proportionality. In any case, the general authorization of a police device does not automatically make any specific use legitimate. The action must be justified by considering the circumstances, the existing threat, and the need to resort to that means.
This aspect has become the focus of the controversy after the interventions carried out during the general strike.
The charges of 11N prompt an investigation and a change of criterion
During the demonstrations of the Wednesday, November 11, police charges were recorded and complaints were filed for the use of pepper spray gas against protesters in Madrid. Trade union organizations and entities defending human rights questioned the proportionality of certain interventions and requested that the facts be investigated.
Amnesty International denounced worrying police actions, while some participants said they had been sprayed with pepper spray without any prior aggression. Images were also circulated of a homeless man who received a burst from the aerosol in Madrid’s Gran Vía. As the Cadena SER reported, police sources consulted by the station considered this latter action improper and contrary to protocol.
In the face of the controversy, Marlaska ordered the 12 November to open specific investigations into the incidents recorded during the day. The minister admitted that some images did not seem compatible at first glance with the principles of proportionality, although he defended the general action of the Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado.
The initial response from the Ministry of the Interior was to announce a ban on the use of tear gas in demonstrations. However, the department clarified on Friday 13 November that the restriction will affect personal defense sprays in public order operations, while it will be permitted to continue using the so-called Triple Lacrimogenic Devices (ATL).
Therefore, any use of pepper spray by the Police has not been banned, nor have all tear gas media used in demonstrations. The modification announced specifically refers to the use of personal defense aerosols in protest control devices.
Police unions question the restriction after the purchase and the new protocol
The decision has provoked criticism among organizations and police command staff who consider it contradictory to justify the acquisition of sprays, broaden their regulation, and then restrict their use in certain operations.
As La Razón reports, several police officials argue that these devices make it possible to keep distance from violent people and avoid physical interventions that could be more harmful. They also question that the change took place immediately after a day of protests and during the campaign for the general elections of 29 November.
Some of the agents consulted by the newspaper attribute the decision to political interests of the Executive. However, these accusations are assessments by police sources and do not establish that the modification of the protocol responds to an electoral strategy.
For its part, Interior maintains that it must be clarified whether the actions of 11N complied with the current regulations. The investigation must analyze the circumstances of each intervention, the orders received, and the proportionality of the means employed. The existence of an authorized purchase or of a protocol that regulates the use of aerosol does not exclude the possibility that a specific application may be considered improper.
What remains to be clarified about the purchase and the use of the spray cans
The controversy leaves several issues pending. One of them is how the new restriction will affect the acquired material and whether the devices can be assigned to other police functions. The announced modification does not necessarily mean that the 71,656.20 euros have been lost, since the restriction is limited to the control of demonstrations and does not imply the general withdrawal of these means from police equipment.
It is also pending to know the outcome of the investigation opened by the Superior Police Headquarters of Madrid and whether individual noncompliance or failures in the planning of the operations are detected.
The debate thus places the focus on the need to establish clear instructions on the use of force, ensure the protection of officers, and preserve the right to demonstrate. The October purchase, the protocol approved weeks later, and the new November restrictions show a change in Interior’s operational criterion, but it will be the investigation into the actions of 11N that will allow determining whether specific responsibilities were incurred.