The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals against the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC), which confirmed sentences of between 10 and 12 years in prison for five young people accused of a crime of sexual abuse of a minor under 16 years of age committed in Manresa in October 2016.
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court rejects in its sentence, collected by Europa Press, the appeals of three of the convicted, who were the only ones raised against the resolution of the TSJC, since the other two convicted did not appeal. The initial sentence was handed down by the Barcelona Court on October 21, 2019, and convicted those accused of multiple rape for a crime of sexual abuse of a minor despite the fact that the Prosecutor’s Office in the trial accused them of sexual assault.
The five convicts and the accusations appealed to the TSJC, which dismissed the defendants’ appeal and partially upheld that of the accusations, in the sense of raising from 12,000 to 60,000 euros the amount of compensation that the convicts had to pay to the victim.
The events occurred in 2016 in Manresa, when a group of young people went to an abandoned factory to make a bottle and a group abused a minor who had drunk alcohol and consumed toxins, and was in an unconscious state. The Court of Barcelona in its sentence pointed out that it was unequivocally a crime of sexual abuse when it was demonstrated that the victim was unconscious and “unable to determine and accept or oppose sexual relations”, although it did not see violence or intimidation in the facts .
The judgment of the Supreme Court, a presentation by magistrate Eduardo Porres, indicates that the three defendants who appealed for appeal alleged that their right to the presumption of innocence had been violated because they considered the evidence supporting their conviction insufficient, that their right had been violated to effective judicial protection and their right to a fair trial.
The Supreme Court responds with respect to the assessment of the evidence that the TSJC already assigned five legal grounds to this matter and that it made “explicit reference to the different exculpatory evidence provided” by the defendants. He points out that this resolution explained “sufficiently” the reasons why these testimonies were not assessed, in substance, as credible.
Regarding the testimonies that were evidence for the prosecution, the court indicates that it considers that the TSJC gave a “motivated and rational” response to the allegations of the defendants that questioned certain testimonies. It refers to the statements of both the victim and a friend who was an eyewitness and essential testimony for the conviction.
Regarding the contradictions in which they incurred, the Supreme Court points out: “It is not uncommon for witnesses to modify their initial statements” and adds that although this “may affect the credibility of their testimonies, it is not a circumstance that should necessarily lead to their invalidation.” ”. And he warns that in this specific case “the climate or context” has been taken into account because several of the witnesses were contacted by one of the convicted persons who warned them that they should not testify if they did not want to have problems.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court indicates that the fact that the minor only presented slight bruises at elbow height and that she had no other injuries “is not useful information to rule out the existence of abuse” as proposed the defenses of the condemned. In line, he maintains that “it is feasible and reasonable to assume that these [abusos] were carried out without causing physical injuries, taking into account that the minor was deprived of consciousness and could not carry out any type of resistance.”
The court points out that it is not relevant that only biological remains of one of the perpetrators were obtained in the minor’s clothing and not of the others. Thus, it points out that this fact “does not exclude the participation of the other defendants.” “In conclusion, the charge evidence practiced in the trial was sufficient to conclude with due solidity and certainty that the appellants sexually abused the minor when she had completely lost consciousness as a result of the intake of alcohol and marijuana,” the text states. .
Regarding another of the allegations of one of the defendants, who defended that he should be excluded from criminal responsibility because he had relations with the consent of the minor, the Supreme Court indicates that this reason cannot prosper because “in the contested sentence it is proclaimed that When the events in question occurred, the minor completely lost consciousness of what was happening and what she was doing, so that in no case can it be accepted that she gave her consent.”
#Supreme #confirms #sentences #herd #Manresa