Police transfer one of the detainees for the Manresa gang rape.R. Carranco
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals against the decision of the Supreme Court of Catalonia (TSJC), which confirmed prison sentences of between 10 and 12 years for five young people accused of a crime of sexually abusing a minor under the age of 16 in October 2016 in Committed to Manresa.
The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, in its verdict collected by Europa Press, dismisses the appeals of three of the convicts, the only ones appealed against the TSJC’s decision, as the other two convicts did not appeal. The first verdict, delivered by the Barcelona court on October 21, 2019, found those accused of multiple rapes guilty of sexually abusing a minor, despite prosecutors accusing them of sexual assault at the trial.
The five convicts and the allegations appealed to the TSJC, which dismissed the defendants’ appeal and partially upheld the allegations, meaning that the amount of compensation that the convicts had to pay the victim was increased from 12,000 to 60,000 euros.
The events happened in Manresa in 2016 when a group of young people went to an abandoned factory to make a bottle and a group abused a minor who had been drinking alcohol and consuming toxins and who was unconscious. The Barcelona court pointed out in its judgment that it was clearly a crime of sexual abuse if it was shown that the victim was unconscious and “unable to determine and accept or engage in sexual relations oppose,” although it saw no violence or intimidation in the facts.
The Supreme Court ruling, delivered by Judge Eduardo Porres, shows that the three defendants who appealed claimed that their right to the presumption of innocence had been violated because they believed the evidence to support their conviction was insufficient, their right to effective legal protection and their right to a fair trial have been violated.
Regarding the evidence, the Supreme Court countered that the TSJC had already identified five legal grounds in the matter and that it had “specifically referred to the various exculpatory evidence presented by the defendants”. He points out that this resolution explains “sufficiently” why these testimonies were not considered to be credible in substance.
Regarding the testimonies that served as evidence for the prosecution, the court notes that in its view, the TSJC provided a “motivated and rational” response to the defendants’ allegations, which called into question certain testimonies. It draws on the testimonies of both the victim and a friend who was an eyewitness and key witness to the sentencing.
Referring to the contradictions they have encountered, the Supreme Court notes, “It is not uncommon for witnesses to alter their original testimonies,” adding that while this “may affect the credibility of their testimonies, it is not a circumstance which should necessarily lead to their invalidity.” And he warns that in this particular case “the climate or the context” was taken into account, as several of the witnesses were contacted by one of the convicts, who warned them they shouldn’t testify if they didn’t want to have problems.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court points out that the fact that the minor had only minor bruises at elbow level and that she had no other injuries “is not useful information to rule out the existence of abuse”, as the defendants’ defense suggests. Consistent with this, he claims that “it is feasible and reasonable to assume that this is the case.” [abusos] were carried out without causing physical injury, taking into account that the minor was unconscious and unable to offer any resistance.”
The court points out that it is irrelevant that only the biological remains of one of the perpetrators were found in the minor’s clothing and not those of the others. It points out that this circumstance “does not exclude the participation of the other defendants”. “In summary, the evidence presented at the hearing is sufficient to conclude with due certainty and certainty that the applicants sexually abused the minors when they became completely unconscious as a result of the consumption of alcohol and marijuana had,” the text says.
Regarding another allegation made by one of the defendants, who had defended that he should be barred from prosecution because he had had relationships with the minor’s consent, the Supreme Court notes that this ground cannot prevail because “in the judgment under appeal this is promulgated”. that when the events in question occurred, the minor lost all consciousness of what was happening and what she was doing, so that it can in no case be assumed that she gave her consent.”