ICEERS | July 29, 2025
Over the past few days, a news headline has circulated widely on social media and in specialized media outlets: “The High Court of Justice of Madrid confirms that ayahuasca is not illegal in Spain.” While the ruling referenced does represent a significant step forward in how the judiciary interprets the legal status of this brew, it has also led to confusion. Many people have concluded that this means it is now legal to work with ayahuasca in Spain — a conclusion that does not accurately reflect the current legal reality.
At ICEERS, we believe it is important to offer a rigorous and contextualized analysis to clarify what this judicial decision does — and does not — imply. To do so, we must first understand how the Spanish judicial system operates and the role this ruling plays within that structure.
How does the justice system work in Spain?
Spain has a single, unified judiciary that operates nationwide within a hierarchical structure. Although Spain’s autonomous communities have their own regional parliaments and governments, the administration of justice falls under the authority of the central state, and there are no independent regional judicial systems.
The Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo) is the highest judicial authority across all branches of law — except in matters of constitutional guarantees, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional). The latter functions as an independent body whose sole responsibility is to safeguard the supremacy of the Constitution. Its decisions are binding on all entities — including the Supreme Court — and it holds the authority to annul laws, administrative acts, or even final judicial rulings that violate constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, is responsible for ensuring doctrinal consistency, issuing interpretations of the law that serve as binding precedents when resolving appeals (known as “cassation” appeals). These decisions shape legal interpretation for future cases.
Below the Supreme Court are the High Courts of Justice (Tribunales Superiores de Justicia, or TSJ) of each autonomous community. These courts serve as the highest authority within their respective regions for most judicial matters. However, their decisions are not binding at the national level; they apply only to the specific case in question and within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The ruling that has garnered significant public attention was issued by the High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) and resolves a case brought within that jurisdiction.
This means that while the TSJM ruling sets an important precedent and may be cited in future cases, it does not establish a binding legal standard across the country. A national-level doctrinal shift would require a ruling from the Supreme Court that affirms the same reasoning through a cassation appeal.
The importance of this ruling within the judicial system
Until now, all legal cases related to ayahuasca in Spain had been resolved by Provincial Courts (Audiencias Provinciales), which serve as appellate courts at the provincial level. These courts are tasked with reviewing decisions from lower courts and, in certain cases, trying serious criminal offenses when not reserved to another jurisdiction. In practice, most drug-related criminal proceedings fall under the jurisdiction of these Provincial Courts.
At the base of the judicial system are the Courts of First Instance and Preliminary Investigation (Juzgados de Primera Instancia e Instrucción), single-judge courts present in every judicial district. These courts are the first point of entry into the criminal justice system. The investigative courts (Juzgados de Instrucción) handle pre-trial inquiries into serious criminal offenses, while the Courts of First Instance typically manage civil matters. Decisions issued by these courts may be appealed to the corresponding Provincial Court.
To date, all ayahuasca-related cases in Spain have been resolved at these lower levels, either through dismissals or acquittals. As a result, no one is currently imprisoned in Spain for possessing, using, or facilitating ayahuasca.
What makes Ruling 316/2025 from the TSJM significant is that it represents the first decision on ayahuasca by a higher-level court, creating the potential to consolidate a more coherent line of case law. However, its immediate impact is limited to the jurisdiction of Madrid and does not carry binding authority across the country.
In the future, a different High Court of Justice in another autonomous community could adopt a contradictory interpretation. Should that occur, it would fall to the Supreme Court to resolve the discrepancy and establish a unified legal doctrine. Until then, the influence of the TSJM ruling depends on whether other courts choose to adopt its reasoning.
The case: An acquittal confirmed by a higher court
The High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) upheld an acquittal in a criminal case that began after a shipment of ayahuasca was seized at Madrid-Barajas Airport in 2021. The court of first instance had already concluded that the facts of the case did not meet the legal definition of a criminal offense. The higher court has now confirmed that decision.
In this case, a full acquittal was issued, meaning the trial court examined the merits and found that the conduct did not constitute a crime. According to the judgment, the defendant’s actions were considered atypical—that is, they did not fall within any of the criminal categories established by the Penal Code — for the following reasons:
- Ayahuasca is not listed as a controlled substance under Spanish law or in the international treaties ratified by Spain.
- There was no evidence of intent to distribute, as the brew was intended for the defendant’s personal use.
- Even if one were to interpret ayahuasca as subject to control (a position the court explicitly rejects), the case would still fall under an exemption from criminal liability: namely, an invincible error of law, due to the lack of legal clarity and the absence of any reasonable warning that the conduct could be considered criminal.
In confirming the acquittal, the TSJM emphasized that although DMT, one of the psychoactive components of ayahuasca, is listed in Schedule I of the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances and is also controlled under Spanish law, ayahuasca itself — considered as a complex plant preparation — is neither individually listed nor explicitly prohibited under any national or international legal provision.
The ruling also underscores that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any concrete risk to public health, a key element required to invoke Article 368 of the Spanish Penal Code, which criminalizes drug trafficking. For criminal liability to apply under this article, the substance in question must be expressly listed in the relevant international conventions and incorporated into Spanish law, either through inclusion in official schedules or through a ministerial order issued by the Ministry of Health.
What does this ruling contribute?
Although this decision does not create binding case law for the entire country, it represents the highest-level judicial ruling to date regarding ayahuasca in Spain. Its influence may be significant, especially if other courts begin to adopt similar reasoning. Nonetheless, high courts in other autonomous communities could reach different interpretations, highlighting the need for eventual doctrinal unification by the Supreme Court.
This ruling by the High Court of Justice of Madrid is particularly relevant for several reasons:
1. It deactivates the automatic presumption of criminality.
The TSJM confirms that the mere possession or importation of ayahuasca, even when the preparation naturally contains DMT, cannot be considered a criminal offense in and of itself. The court considers that ayahuasca does not fall under the criminal regime established by Article 368 of the Penal Code, which punishes acts of cultivation, production, trafficking, or facilitation of the illegal consumption of toxic drugs, narcotics, or psychotropic substances.
Since ayahuasca is not expressly included in the lists of controlled substances — neither in international conventions nor in national regulations — and because this case involved neither proven intent to distribute nor a demonstrated risk to public health, the conduct is considered atypical; that is, it does not fall within the scope of the penal provision. Therefore, activities related to ayahuasca — when not pursued for profit and absent aggravating circumstances — do not fall under the scope of Article 368.
2. It reinforces a differentiated line of case law.
The ruling aligns with a series of previous judicial decisions that distinguish between isolated substances and complex plant preparations. While the court does not refer to a specific use (ritual, personal, medicinal), it does acknowledge that — as the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has previously stated — plants containing DMT are not controlled per se, and that this distinction must be respected.
3. It strengthens legal defense in future cases.
The decision provides solid and well-reasoned arguments that may be cited in other similar proceedings, helping to prevent disproportionate or context-blind indictments. While it does not establish a binding doctrine, its persuasive value is high, as it comes from a second-instance court with technical expertise and familiarity with the international regulatory framework.
Does this ruling constitute binding case law in Spain?
It is important to recall that, within the Spanish legal system, case law — understood as the body of judicial precedents — plays a relevant role as an interpretive complement to statutory law. When the Supreme Court has established a consistent legal interpretation through repeated rulings, such judicial doctrine acquires binding force for lower courts, insofar as it constitutes an authoritative interpretive standard that must guide the application of the law in similar cases.
In Spain, a single ruling is not sufficient to constitute binding case law. Legal tradition requires reiteration: a “legal doctrine” is recognized when the Supreme Court has resolved at least two analogous cases in the same direction, ruling on a specific legal question with substantially similar reasoning. Only through such repetition does the obligation arise for lower courts to treat the Supreme Court’s interpretation as the preferred normative reference.
The principle underlying this system is the need to ensure legal certainty and coherence, so that substantially similar cases receive consistent outcomes — unless exceptional circumstances justify a departure, such as legislative reform or a direct contradiction between existing case law and the law itself.
In practice, lower courts tend to adopt the Supreme Court’s doctrinal criteria once they are established, aware that any unjustified deviation risks being overturned on appeal or in cassation. Although judges are formally bound only by the law and legal principles, within the hierarchical structure of the judiciary, Supreme Court decisions exert a strong guiding influence.
By contrast, rulings issued by lower courts — such as the Provincial Courts — or even by the High Courts of Justice of the autonomous communities do not generate binding case law. Their decisions may serve as auxiliary criteria or persuasive arguments, but they lack general binding authority. Only the Supreme Court — and in matters of constitutional guarantees, the Constitutional Court — holds the power to establish jurisprudential doctrine with binding effect for the judicial system as a whole.
Does this ruling mean it is now legal to work with ayahuasca in Spain?
For the time being, the answer remains uncertain. Spain currently lacks any specific regulation governing the use of ayahuasca, whether in traditional, therapeutic, or personal development contexts. This absence of regulation creates a scenario of legal uncertainty, in which each case is assessed individually by judges, prosecutors, and other authorities, depending on multiple factors: the context of use, the quantity seized, the presence or absence of profit motive, among others.
The ruling by the High Court of Justice of Madrid does not create a general right to work with ayahuasca, but it does define the limits of criminal intervention. The court makes clear that the mere possession or importation of the brew is not, by itself, sufficient to justify prosecution or conviction, in the absence of elements such as demonstrable risk to public health or intent to distribute. This represents progress in terms of protection against the automatic application of Article 368 of the Penal Code.
However, this limitation of the criminal scope does not amount to legalization of the practice. The lack of formal regulation forces those who work with ayahuasca to operate within a legally undefined space, which may give rise to other types of liability. For example, improper use of the substance could lead to civil or criminal consequences if harm occurs to participants; administrative sanctions may also arise related to lack of business licenses, violations of health or safety codes, or non-compliance with tax obligations, among others.
Moreover, this ruling does not guarantee the end of arrests, seizures, or legal proceedings in other regions. As long as no clear and uniform regulation exists, these situations will continue to occur. In fact, an arrest in another autonomous community could result in a new criminal case which, if appealed, might reach that region’s High Court of Justice — and that court could rule differently than Madrid’s.
In such a scenario, the final word would rest with the Supreme Court, whose decision would carry binding and unifying authority for the judicial system nationwide. Only then could we speak of a firm consolidation of case law that would bring stability and coherence to the legal treatment of human uses of ayahuasca.
What if the case reached the Supreme Court?
If a legal case involving ayahuasca were to reach the Supreme Court, two broad legal scenarios could unfold. On one hand, the Supreme Court could adopt a restrictive interpretation, aligning itself with the positio n— upheld in other countries and by certain legal scholars — that since DMT is a controlled substance, plants that naturally contain it should also be considered subject to control. This expansive interpretation of controlled substance lists, while legally debatable, would represent one of the worst possible outcomes: the consolidation of a doctrine that would allow for the criminal prosecution of individuals working with ayahuasca, even in the absence of profit or proven public health risk. In such a case, after more than twenty years and over thirty dismissed or acquitted proceedings, working with ayahuasca in Spain could result in prison sentences.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court could uphold the reasoning adopted by the High Court of Justice of Madrid — namely, that ayahuasca, as a plant-based preparation, is not listed in international treaties or in Spain’s national schedules of controlled substances, and that Article 368 of the Penal Code cannot be automatically applied. If this interpretation were reaffirmed in at least two rulings, it would constitute binding case law, requiring all courts in Spain to follow the same legal standard and providing a more stable framework for legal protection.
To date, such doctrinal consolidation has not yet occurred, but rulings like that of the TSJM reflect a shift toward a more rigorous and proportionate legal approach. In any case, even a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court would not amount to the legalization of working with ayahuasca. In the absence of specific administrative regulation, the practice would remain subject to various forms of legal exposure beyond the criminal domain.
What should happen for working with ayahuasca in Spain to receive legal recognition?
For work with ayahuasca in Spain to take place within a fully legal environment — that is, one supported by a clear, stable regulatory framework that respects cultural rights — change cannot rely solely on the courts, whose role is limited to interpreting existing laws on a case-by-case basis.
What is needed is decisive action by public authorities, through the creation of specific regulations that define how this activity should be carried out: safety and traceability standards, training requirements, oversight mechanisms, protection of collective rights, and recognition of the cultural and therapeutic value of these practices.
Such regulation will not arise automatically from favorable court rulings. Laws are not born in the courtroom, but rather emerge from social processes capable of articulating collective demands and generating political will. And that momentum can only come from the community itself: people and groups who organize, build consensus, and exert pressure with legitimacy, coherence, and a long-term vision.
In this regard, initiatives like Federación Red Micelio represent meaningful progress. Their role as a collective self-regulation tool, inspired by models such as traditional guilds or professional associations, allows for the establishment of codes of conduct, the reinforcement of shared ethics, and the ability to build trust among both institutions and the broader public. These initiatives demonstrate that the community is willing and able to self-regulate and take care of its own practices.
At ICEERS, we strongly support these efforts. We believe that only a legitimate legal framework — developed through participatory processes and adapted to social and cultural realities — can offer lasting guarantees that will allow these practices to flourish in freedom, without criminalization or legal ambiguity.
What does this ruling mean for those who work with plants?
For individuals working with psychoactive plant species in Spain, the legal situation remains ambiguous. No specific regulation exists that defines how these practices should be carried out, and the interpretation of their legality largely depends on the discretion of judges, prosecutors, police, and customs officials. In this context, caution, discretion, and strict compliance with existing laws — such as those concerning unlicensed medical practice, health-related advertising, and tax obligations — remain the most effective forms of protection for those operating in this legally uncertain environment.
Recent history offers valuable lessons. Time and again, when a substance with therapeutic potential gains public attention — as happened with LSD in the 1960s or MDMA in the 1980s — its use expands rapidly in a legal vacuum, fueled by enthusiasm and media coverage. That expansion is often followed by isolated incidents, misunderstandings, or problematic use, which are amplified by the media until a sense of crisis emerges. At that point, the state’s response tends to be punitive, banning the substance entirely. The cycle ends with a prolonged period of stigmatization and silence: in the case of LSD, it has taken over six decades for its therapeutic potential to be reconsidered in scientific contexts.
At ICEERS, we view with concern the spread of celebratory, oversimplified, or ambiguous messages, which may lead many people to believe that the legal situation is already resolved, or that no risks remain. Such perceptions — however well-intentioned — may actually help create the very conditions that lead to prohibition. That is why we believe that the best way to protect these practices is through responsibility, accurate information, and a collective commitment to a culture of care.
The need for legal certainty and a proportionate approach
At ICEERS, we view this ruling as a meaningful step toward greater legal certainty for individuals who engage with ayahuasca in a conscious, informed, and responsible way. However, as long as clear regulation remains absent, the risk of police, customs, or judicial intervention persists, even in cases where proceedings ultimately result in no conviction.
Ideally, in the future, both judicial and legislative bodies will address this issue in a structural manner—recognizing the cultural, historical, and therapeutic context of these practices, rather than relying on punitive approaches rooted in chemical analogies that fail to reflect the reality of traditional use.
At ICEERS, we remain committed to the creation of legal frameworks that protect the exercise of cultural and biocultural rights, based on evidence, respect, and inclusive participation. Our work includes the production of rigorous knowledge, strategic legal support, and sustained dialogue with institutions and communities.
This ruling does not fill the legal vacuum, but it affirms the direction of the transformation we have been advocating for over fifteen years: a paradigm shift toward understanding, proportionality, and the recognition of diverse knowledge systems and practices linked to psychoactive plants and other natural substances.
Categories:
Noticias
, NEWS
, Ayahuasca
, ADF
Tags:
legality
, ayahuasca
, Spain
, trial
, prison