AMP. The TS lowers the prison sentence to three convicted of a group rape in Navarra of a woman with a disability

The sentences of two of the aggressors go from 17 to 13 years in prison; while the third goes from 16 to 8 years

MADRID, 26 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has reduced the prison sentences of the three convicted of a group rape of a woman with mental disabilities that took place in 2019 in a park in Orkoien, Navarra, considering that the environmental intimidation was not face-to-face and apply the new wording of the Penal Code after the entry into force of the 'only yes is yes' law.

The Provincial Court of Navarra sentenced the three as necessary collaborators in the sexual assaults committed by two of them, because one of the defendants had consensual sexual relations with the young woman.

Now, the Supreme Court has considered it appropriate to maintain the sentences of 9 years in prison for the two who were convicted of the crime of sexual assault, but has agreed to reduce the prison sentences imposed on them as collaborators in said attacks from 8 to 4 years. .

With this decision, the two men who were sentenced by the Court of Navarra to 17 years are left with a sentence of 13 years in prison --9 for the crime of sexual assault and 4 for that of cooperator--. The third, who was sentenced to 16 years, sees his prison sentence reduced to 8 years --4 years as a cooperator in the two sexual assaults--.

As stated in the sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, the events date back to November 2019, when the defendants moved to the town of Orkoien, where they had met the victim because one of them had contacted her through through a social network.

In the park, the three defendants agreed among themselves to have sexual relations with the young woman, who was then 23 years old. Each maintained relations while the other two waited.

In the resolution it is stated that the first of them offered the young woman to move away to an area between some bushes. She voluntarily agreed and there they both had consensual sex.

The other two remained outside that area, hidden from the view of third parties from outside. As the three had agreed, when the first one ended, he left the place and another of the defendants who sexually assaulted the victim agreed. At the end of the second, he left the place and notified the third defendant that he entered and committed another sexual assault.

The Supreme Court has concluded that in this specific case "it was not an intimidation due to physical attendance, but less active and outside the place of the facts." The magistrates have specified that although the conduct was intimidating, as perceived by the victim and carried out by those responsible, said action was less participatory than in other cases.

Thus, the magistrates have considered that in this case the sentence of 4 years in prison for cooperation in the three cases "is duly proportional and adequate considering the specific case with effective environmental intimidation but degraded compared to other cases of greater presence and physical attitude and closeness".

In this sense, they have specified that it is possible to impose said penalty because the Organic Law of Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom allows it by putting in cooperation for the commission of sexual crimes "the minimum of 4 years in prison compared to 6 years of imprisonment." prison of the previous code".

Within the framework of the resolution, the court has dismissed the appeals filed by the accusations filed by the family of the victim and the Orcoyen City Council in which they requested, among other issues, that two other defendants be sentenced for Hearing of Navarra acquitted.

On the sidelines, the magistrates have also rejected the request to convict the defendant who had consensual sex with the young woman for a crime of sexual assault.

Although the court has agreed to reduce the prison sentences imposed by considering that the environmental intimidation was not face-to-face and by applying the 'only yes is yes' law, the magistrates have underlined their rejection of the defendants' argument that the victim had already had sexual relations before the attack in the Orkoien park.

"It should be noted that the allegation that the victim has had sexual relations before is rejected, since this means denying the right to sexual freedom of women for wanting to have sexual relations with whoever they want and when they want," they have pointed out.

In addition, in the sentence for which Judge Vicente Magro has been a rapporteur, the Supreme Court has stressed that if the young woman agreed to have sexual relations with one of the convicted persons that day "she has a perfect right to show her opposition to having them" with the others two.

"In no case does the fact that the victim consented to carry out the sexual act with T.E.D determine that the acts with the other two appellants should also be consented to," the court stressed, later adding that there is no such thing as "extension of punctual consents".

For the magistrates, to claim the opposite would mean "blaming the victim, and imposing a kind of 'sexual servitude' on him due to the fact that he had previously had a sexual relationship." "The woman decides with whom she wants to have sexual relations, and these cannot be imposed on her," they have settled.