The Supreme Court raises the sentences for the three convicted of 'the pack of Sabadell' for the "intimidating effect"

Two go from 13 and a half years to 24 years in prison and a third, from 22 to 28 years.

MADRID, 1 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has agreed to raise the sentences of the three members of 'la manada de Sabadell' for the "intimidating effect" they exerted in the group rape of an 18-year-old girl in that Catalan town in February 2019. The magistrates have explained that in multiple sexual assaults, the conduct of those who are part of the group --even if they are not the perpetrators of the violations-- have an extra seriousness due to the environmental intimacy of the victim that must be qualified as necessary cooperation, not just complicity.

In the sentence, collected by Europa Press, the court has upheld the appeal of the Prosecutor's Office and has raised the sentence of the two convicted for complicity in the three violations suffered by the young woman from 13 years and 6 months to 24 years in prison. now be considered necessary cooperators of the same and not accomplices.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has raised the sentence of one of the perpetrators of sexual assault from 22 to 28 years in prison, on whom it imposes 12 years in prison as the perpetrator of the rape and 16 more years as a necessary cooperator of the two sexual assaults committed by two other men (one of them in absentia and another unidentified).

The events date back to the early morning of February 3, 2019, when one of the defendants approached the victim as she was leaving a nightclub. The man grabbed the young woman -- then 18 years old -- by her neck, pinned her against a wall, and sexually assaulted her. Then he took her to an industrial warehouse, where the rest of the convicts were - all between 25 and 30 years old - who raped her repeatedly until around 7:30 a.m. the young woman managed to escape and asked for help from some neighbors who were leaving the her garage.

The magistrates have stressed that the defendants "created environmental intimidation, were present reinforcing all the attacks with their participation, encouraged the perpetrators, dissuaded the victim, increased and created the risk situation." And they have also remarked that "their contribution was not sporadic, accidental and expendable, but causally relevant".

"That is to say, they were necessary collaborators and not simple accomplices of the crimes of rape", have pointed out the magistrates of the Criminal Chamber who, at the same time, have considered that in this case "the activity of the co-authors is not at all passive , but absolutely decisive to bend the will of the victim".

In line, the court has stressed that "the intimidation caused the victim to adopt an attitude of submission, not consent"

The Supreme Court has explained that the concept of necessary cooperation extends to cases in which, "even though there is no preordained plan, the violation occurs in the presence of other individuals without prior agreement, but with awareness of the action that is carried out jointly." .

"In these cases, the intimidating effect is produced by the simple presence or concurrence of several people, other than the one who materially consummates the violation, since the existence of the group can produce a state of environmental intimidation in the person attacked. And it is that intimidation always and group intimidation inexcusably makes the victim adopt an attitude of submission, not consent," the magistrates have specified.

In addition, the Supreme Court has stressed that "in multiple sexual assaults there is an intensification of the intimidation suffered by the victim with an effective reduction in their ability to respond, all of which gives rise to a qualitative increase in the seriousness of the situation, radically incompatible with the complicity".

Within the framework of the resolution, for which Judge Juan Ramón Berdugo has been a rapporteur, the court has dismissed the arguments that outlined the defenses of the three convicted.

In his appeal, one of the defendants alleged that the intimidation doctrine had been "misapplied" to him. According to her defense, when the victim arrived at the ship where all the defendants were, she was already intimidated "for having suffered a sexual assault along the way," so - in her opinion - the young woman was not influenced by the alleged intimidation of the other defendants who were in the factory.

The Supreme Court has responded that "the fact that the victim had been the object of a first sexual assault before arriving at the premises (...) is not incompatible with the intimidation that was subsequently caused" by all the defendants.

The court has ruled out that the fundamental rights of the aggressors have been violated, including the presumption of innocence. In 88 pages, the magistrates have ensured that the trial court sentenced them with sufficient evidence, referring --among others-- to the photographic examinations carried out and the expert evidence that evidenced the presence of the defendants at the scene of the events.

"The evaluation of the test was not illogical, nor contrary to the rules of human experience, nor did it deviate unjustifiably from scientific knowledge, but rather it conforms to the rational "criterion", "they pointed out and then added that" there was legitimate evidence , charged and motivated" and that the doctrine of the Provincial Court and the TSJ "resulted in coherence with the constitutional principles".

It should be remembered that in 2021 the Provincial Court of Barcelona sentenced three of the four defendants from the 'Sabadell herd' to up to 31 years in prison for the three sexual assaults. Specifically, the magistrates imposed 31 years in prison on the perpetrator of one of the attacks and a necessary cooperator of the other two; 13 years and 6 months to two other defendants for complicity in a crime of sexual assault; and they acquitted the fourth defendant, "since there is no evidence that proves his presence at the place and time of the events."

Subsequently, the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Catalonia partially upheld the appeal of one of the defendants and considered him an accomplice and necessary non-cooperator of the two sexual assaults not committed by him, so it established two 4-year sentences for it. and 6 months in prison instead of 9 years, keeping the sentence of 13 years in prison unchanged for the sexual assault he committed. In other words, the sentence became 22 years.

Now, the Supreme Court has raised the sentences by estimating the claim of the Prosecutor's Office that what was considered complicity in the sexual assaults of the three defendants is qualified as necessary cooperation in the crimes.