The Supreme Court sentenced the two former players of the ‘Arandina case’ to 9 years in prison, which is meant to increase their sentences of 4 and 3 years as determined by the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León (TSJCyL). ), because remove alleviationthus estimating the objection of the Prosecutor’s Office, but not purely because the Public Ministry requested a 10-year prison sentence and the Court of Cassation missed one year due to the application of the ‘only yes is yes’ law.
As reported by the Supreme Court, the magistrates considered the prosecution’s appeal and the charges, and They aggravated the sentences of the two convicted in the ‘Arandina case’ by eliminating a similar mitigation applied by the High Court of Castilla y León.
However, the court gave the convicts a lower sentence than would have been given before the reform promoted by the Ministry of Equality. because in this particular case the sentence is now less than a year’s imprisonment. Thus, the Supreme Court accepted to apply the law for the benefit of the defendants.
This Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard appeals against the ruling of the High Court of Justice of Castilla y León (TSJCyL) in the so-called ‘Arandina case’, which involved the acquittal of one of three former club players convicted of sexual offenses. attacking the minor and reducing the sentence of the other two from 38 years to 4 and 3.
The Criminal Chamber examined the objections made by the prosecutor’s office, the private and popular accusations and defenses of the two football players whose convictions continue. According to legal sources consulted, this review is part of the normal appeals process, although it arose amid the controversy caused by the enactment of the so-called ‘yes-only law is yes’ law.
The first sentence for the ‘Arandina case’ was handed down by the Burgos State Court in December 2019. Sentencing three football players to 38 years in prison as perpetrators and necessary collaborators of sexual assault committed against a minor two years ago, he also appreciates the presence of environmental intimidation.
According to proven facts, the victim, who was 15 at the time, left the apartment shared by three teenagers in Aranda de Duero, the town of Burgos, where the sexual assault took place, unable to react for different reasons. physical complexion of two, prisoner and underage, because three of them acted on him with the light off and by surprise.
This initial decision was appealed, and TSJCyL decided in March 2020 to classify facts as sexual abuse. Court rejects intimidation decision see contradictions in the victim’s account and appreciated the extenuating circumstance given the closeness of age and maturity between the convicted person and the victim. This meant that the sentences of ‘Lucho’ and ‘Viti’ were reduced to 4 and 3 years respectively.
As for the third convict, the court of Castile-Leon acquitted him. and ruled out criminal responsibility for what happened in the living room of the house. The Burgos Court had only acquitted him of what had happened in his room.
The victim explained that, as reflected in this second sentence, he had sexual intercourse with three actors in the living room of the house due to fear, and then had full sexual intercourse with one of the actors. in his room.
The defenses of ‘Lucho’ and ‘Viti’ had sought acquittal on their appeal. The private prosecution by the victim and the popular prosecution of the Clara Campoamor Society had requested the Supreme Court to sentence them to 38 years in prison.
At that time, the prosecution offered to increase the sentences of these two players to 10 years in prison. As the perpetrator of sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 16, but extenuating circumstances involving TSJCyL have been eliminated.
Prosecutor Paloma Abad argued in a recent letter that under the ‘yes is yes only’ law, it is possible for her first request to be sentenced to 10 years in prison because the new penalty range for this behavior is 6 to 12 years.
However, if the Court of Cassation did not consider this option, the prosecutor argued that there was no need for a reduction and demanded that the current sentence for sexual abuse be continued with the reduction in question, up to 3 and 4 years in prison. because for this assumption it fits the same as the new fork went from 2 years to 4 and a half years.
Open the door to lower the sentences of rapists
This Tuesday, the Supreme Court decided that the ‘Yes-only law is yes’ law to be applied in the framework of the ‘Arandina case’, determined that the sentence for those convicted of sexual crimes could be reduced due to the enactment of sexual crimes. although the new standard insists that it should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
More community news
As reported by the Court of Cassation, the Criminal Division insisted on Law no. 10/2022. Now when a lower penalty is set where appropriate, but analyzed on a case-by-case basis, it can be applied in the best interest of the accused.and not globally.
#Supreme #Court #applies #law #increases #sentences #Arandina #case #years #years