The Supreme Court will review the sentence of the 'Arandina case' on November 29

The TSJCL acquitted one of the three convicted and drastically reduced the sentences of the other two

MADRID, 17 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) will deliberate on November 29 the appeals filed against the sentence handed down in the so-called 'Arandina case', with which the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León (TSJCL) acquitted one of the three convicted by the Provincial Court of Burgos - which imposed 38 years in prison on each one - and reduced the sentences for the other two to four and three years in prison.

According to the legal sources consulted by Europa Press, the Second Chamber will study the appeal filed by the Prosecutor's Office against said sentence in 2020, for which reason the aforementioned sources emphasize that it is the normal course of appeals, even if it occurs in the middle of the controversy caused by the entry into force of what is known as the 'law of only yes is yes'.

The Prosecutor's Office did not see it as viable to appeal the acquittal, but it did consider that the sentence handed down by the TSJCL does not conform to the law with regard to the sentences imposed on the other two implicated.

The Public Ministry understands that there was an improper application of the analogical mitigation of closeness of age and proximity in the degree of development or maturity with the victim, while, thirdly, it considers that it was not appropriate to appreciate said mitigation as highly qualified.

The TSJCL modified the sentence in response to the appeals presented by the defenses of the three former Arandina footballers, convicted by the Burgos Provincial Court for crimes of sexual assault.

The Chamber understood that the facts were constitutive of a crime of sexual abuse, committed in the person of a minor, and appreciated said extenuating factors, while totally excluding one of the three convicted from responsibility.

The court pointed out that the minor's statement -assessed jointly with the rest of the evidence, testimonial, expert and documentary (video, conversations and telephone messages)- enjoyed full credibility in terms of the reality of the events that occurred in the floor room, but lacked it in terms of the way they were produced.

Specifically, he did not consider the existence of intimidation proven, when appreciating the contradictions that are revealed between his statement -in which he attributes the sexual acts with the three sentenced to the blockade caused by fear--, and the behavior observed both in the previous moments --in which he exchanged messages of sexual content with one of them and agreed to accompany him to his house the next day--, as in those immediately after --in which he left the room, to voluntarily have a sexual relationship complete with one of them in an adjoining room (stated fact proven)--.

Said contradictions, according to the ruling, show cracks in the credibility of the statement, which was not corroborated by the peripheral elements either, since neither the witness statements transmitting what the minor herself told them nor the telephone messages exchanged in a At first they allowed us to affirm that in the living room of the house she acted against her will when she was gripped by fear, a version that she later transmitted to her parents and to the counselor who treated her in Madrid later.

Consequently, the TSJCL modified the proven facts, deleting the reference to intimidation, and classified them as a crime of sexual abuse of a child under 16 years of age, where consent lacked legal significance due to the reform of the Penal Code of 2015, which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 years.