Police transfer one of those arrested for the gang rape of Manresa.R. Carranco
The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals against the ruling 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 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 convicts, who were the only ones raised against the resolution of the TSJC, since the other two convicted did not appeal. The initial sentence was issued by the Audiencia de Barcelona on October 21, 2019, and convicted the defendants of multiple rape for a crime of sexual abuse of a minor despite the fact that the Prosecutor's Office in the trial accused of sexual assault.
The five convicts and the accusations appealed to the TSJC, which dismissed the appeal of the defendants 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 toxics, and was in a state of unconsciousness. 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 he did not see violence or intimidation in the facts.
The judgment of the Supreme Court, presented by Judge Eduardo Porres, indicates that the three defendants who went in cassation alleged that their right to the presumption of innocence had been violated because they considered insufficient the evidence of the charge that supports their conviction, that their right to effective judicial protection and their right to a fair trial had been violated.
The Supreme Court responds regarding the evaluation of the evidence that the TSJC already allocated five legal bases to that matter and that it made "explicit reference to the different exculpatory evidence provided" by the accused. It points out that this resolution explained "sufficiently" the reasons why these testimonies were not valued, in substance, as credible.
On the testimonies that were evidence of the charge, the court indicates that it considers that the TSJC gave a "motivated and rational" response to the allegations of the defendants who questioned certain testimonies. It refers to the statements of both the victim and a friend who was an eyewitness and testimony fundamental to 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, they are not a circumstance that should necessarily lead to invalidate them." 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 condemned 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 had slight bruises at the elbow and that she had no other injuries "is not a fact that is useful to rule out the existence of abuses" as proposed by the defenses of the convicted. In this regard, it maintains that "it is feasible and reasonable to assume that these [abuses] were carried out without causing physical injury, taking into account that the minor was deprived of consciousness and could not perform any type of resistance."
The court points out that it is also not relevant that only biological remains of one of the authors were obtained in the clothing of the minor and not of the others. It thus states that this fact "does not exclude the participation of the remaining accused". "In conclusion, the evidence of the prosecution practiced in the trial was sufficient to conclude with due solidity and certainty that the appellants sexually abused the minor when she had totally lost consciousness as a result of the intake of alcohol and marijuana," the text states.
On another of the allegations of one of the accused, who defended that he should be excluded from criminal responsibility because he maintained relations with the consent of the minor, the Supreme Court indicates that this reason cannot succeed because "in the contested sentence it is proclaimed that when the facts prosecuted occurred the minor came to totally lose consciousness of what was happening and what she was doing, so that in no case can it be admitted that he gave his consent".