An official from the Asturias penitentiary center has been sentenced to one year in prison and eight years of absolute disqualification for a crime of torture. Judge María Paz González-Tascón, head of Criminal Court 3 of Oviedo, considers it proven that the accused hit an inmate with his rubber bumper, up to two times, taking advantage of the fact that he was immobilized in a subject isolation cell. of arms, ankles, waist and legs and could not defend himself.
The prisoner had been transferred to Isolation on November 17, 2022, after being involved in an incident with several officials. That day, he had appeared at the surveillance booth and “without reason or justification” tried to attack the officials with a knife that he was carrying in his mouth. After being reduced, a disciplinary file was opened against him. Once in the cell, he was searched and another blade was found hidden in his underwear.
The next day, when the inmate was serving the disciplinary sanction in the isolation cell, at around 9:10 a.m., he began to be “very violent, shouting and hitting the door of the cell in which he was found,” according to the sentence to which elDiario.es Asturias has had access.
Beatings “without need or justification,” according to the ruling
Several Surveillance officials went to Isolation, at which point the prisoner “repeatedly threatened to kill them and violently tried to attack them” for which, according to the resolution, they had to restrain him.
Gradually, the inmate increased his violent attitude throughout the morning and, around one in the afternoon, the officials applied mechanical restraint with approved straps to restrain his arms, ankles, waist and legs. The sentence emphasizes that at all times it was done applying “the protocol provided for these situations.”
When the inmate was already restrained by the rest of the officials present and with mechanical restraints, the accused who had not intervened in the restraint maneuvers, “without need or justification,” according to the ruling, hit the prisoner with the regulatory defense “holding him with both hands and placing it in a vertical position” on the inmate’s body, reaching him in the lower part of the belly.
Other ‘touches’ with the regulatory defense
He then left the room where the inmate was being held, but returned again and, using the same mechanism of aggression, struck him in the groin at the level of the testicular area.
The magistrate affirms in the sentence that, between both attacks, the official made touches with the defense “in the form of tapping” on the chest, right leg and foot of the inmate.
Five colleagues of the defendant also declared in the oral hearing that there was no attack and that it was only a threat, testimonies that in view of the recordings do not offer any credibility and only respond to an attempt to exonerate their partner for a misunderstood corporatism. which paints them, at the very least, as accomplices or concealers of despicable conduct that discredits prison officials.
María Paz González-Tascón
— Head of the Criminal Court 3 of Oviedo
Viewing security cameras
In the viewing of the security cameras of the place where the attack occurred, it was seen “clearly and clearly” how the inmate reacted with pain on the two occasions in which he was hit by the defendant even though he was already immobilized.
The sentence therefore considers it proven that he hit him unnecessarily on two occasions, despite the fact that the defendant denied it during the oral trial held on the 15th, although he had admitted it to the director of the penitentiary center after the events.
Five colleagues of the defendant also testified at the oral hearing that there was no attack and that it was only a threat, testimonies that, according to the magistrate, in view of the recordings do not offer any credibility.
According to the sentence, they are only responding to an attempt to exonerate their partner for a misunderstood corporatism that paints them, at the very least, as “accomplices or accessories” of “despicable procedures” that discredit prison officials.
Investigation into possible false testimonies
The magistrate points out that given their “mendacious and self-serving statement”, once the sentence is final, their statements must be sent to the court on duty in case they have committed crimes of false testimony.
The official has been convicted of the crime of torture and has been acquitted of the crime of mistreatment since the latter can only be prosecuted following a complaint from the injured party and, in this case, the prisoner did not formalize it. The sentence thus follows the criterion of the Asturias Prosecutor’s Office that requested a sentence of eight years of absolute disqualification for eight years to the full extent indicated in article 41 of the Penal Code.
This article contemplates that the penalty of absolute disqualification produces the definitive deprivation “of all honors, jobs and public positions held by the convicted person, even if they are elective. It also produces the inability to obtain the same or any other honors, positions or public jobs, and to be elected to public office, during the time of the sentence.”
The resolution is not final and an appeal can be filed against it before the Provincial Court of Asturias within a period of ten days.
#Asturias #prison #official #sentenced #prison #disqualified #torturing #immobilized #prisoner
