The Supreme Court will study on Tuesday the appeals against the sentence of the 'Arandina case'

The Prosecutor's Office asks to increase the sentences to 10 years and alleges that the "law of only yes is yes" allows it

MADRID, 28 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) will deliberate this Tuesday on the appeals filed against the sentence handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León (TSJCyL) in the so-called 'Arandina case', which involved acquitting one of the three former club players convicted of sexual assault on a minor and reduce the sentence of the other two from 38 years in prison to 4 and 3.

The Criminal Chamber of the TS will study the challenges made by the Prosecutor's Office, the private and popular accusations and the defenses of the two footballers who continue to be convicted, as part of the normal course of appeals, even if it occurs in the midst of the controversy raised by the entry into force of the so-called 'law of only yes is yes', according to the legal sources consulted.

In fact, the same sources emphasize that the legal debate will focus fundamentally on the appreciation of a mitigating factor that assesses the closeness of age and maturity between the aggressors and the victim. However, this same Tuesday the Second Chamber will analyze other appeals against cases of sexual abuse and assault that occurred in the Canary Islands, Andalusia and Castilla La Mancha. Last week, they specify, he already examined others, including one referring to the Balearic Islands.

The first sentence for the 'Arandina case' was handed down in December 2019 by the Provincial Court of Burgos, sentencing the three soccer players to 38 years in prison each as perpetrators and necessary collaborators of a crime of sexual assault committed two years earlier against a minor. , also appreciating the existence of environmental intimidation.

According to the proven facts, the victim, then 15 years old, went to the apartment that the three young people shared in the Burgos town of Aranda de Duero, where the sexual assault took place without her being able to react, due to the different physical complexion of the two. condemned and the minor, since the three acted on her with the light off and by surprise.

This first ruling was appealed and the TSJCyL decided in March 2020 to classify the facts as sexual abuse, ruling out intimidation due to what it considered contradictions in the victim's account, and appreciating an extenuating circumstance due to the closeness of age and maturity between the convicted and victim, which meant lowering the sentences of 'Lucho' and 'Viti' to 4 and 3 years in prison, respectively.

As for the third convicted person, the TSJCyL acquitted him, ruling out his criminal responsibility for what happened in the living room of the house. The Court of Burgos had only acquitted him of what happened in his room.

As reflected in this second sentence, the victim recounted that, in the living room of the house, she had sexual contact with the three players due to the blockade due to fear and that, later, she had a complete sexual relationship with one of them in his room.

The defenses of 'Lucho' and 'Viti' also seek acquittal in their respective resources, while the private prosecution brought by the victim and the public prosecution of the Clara Campoamor Association ask the Supreme Court to sentence them again to 38 years in prison.

The Prosecutor's Office, for its part, proposed at the time to raise the sentence of these two players to 10 years in prison, as perpetrators of a crime of sexual abuse of a minor under 16 years of age but eliminating the extenuating circumstance that included the TSJCyL.

Prosecutor Paloma Abad has argued in a recent letter that with the 'law of only yes is yes' it is possible to maintain her initial request for 10 years in prison because the new criminal range for this behavior is between 6 and 12 years in prison.

However, in the event that the TS does not consider this option, the prosecutor demands that the current sentence for sexual abuse be maintained with said mitigation --to 3 and 4 years in prison--, arguing that it is not necessary to lower it because it fits likewise, since the new fork for this assumption goes from 2 to 4 and a half years.