The Supreme elevates the penalties to the three convicted of ‘La Manada de Sabadell’ for group rape
The magistrates estimate a plus of gravity and consider that there was necessary cooperation and an intimidating effect
The Supreme Tribunal has raised three defendants for participating in the group violation of an 18 -year -old in Sabadell (Barcelona) in February 2019, considering that in multiple sexual aggressions the conduct of those who are part of the group, are part of the group, Although they are not the authors of the violations, they have a plus of gravity in the environmental intimacy of the victim that must be qualified as necessary cooperation in the crime and not only complicity.
The Criminal Chamber estimates the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office and elevates from 13 and a half years to 24 years in prison the sentence to the two sentenced for complicity in the three violations suffered by the young woman, when they are now considered necessary cooperators of them and Non -complicit.
In addition, the magistrates increase from 22 to 28 years in prison the penalty to one of the authors of sexual aggression, who imposes 12 years in prison as the author of the violation and 16 years as a necessary cooperator of the two sexual aggressions committed by others Two men (one of them in rebellion and one unidentified).
The events occurred after 6 in the morning of February 3, 2019 when the victim was heading alone at home after having been in a disco and a man (who could not be identified) approached her in the back, grabbing her by The neck, putting it against the wall and touching the girl and introducing a finger in her vagina. He then led her to a place that had previously been a banking office, occupied at the time for at least six other men (the three defendants, another declared in rebellion and two more unidentified individuals).
The young woman was raped first by two of the men (the one who assaulted her in the street and the declared in rebellion) and thirdly by one of the defendants, who not only penetrated her vaginally and orally as the previous two, but what He tried anally.
The Barcelona Hearing, in the first instance, condemned the author of one of the violations to 31 years in prison (13 years for sexual aggression and two sentences of 9 years as a necessary cooperator of each of the other two aggressions), and to the Two other defendants, who were part of the group but did not commit the violations, at 13 and a half years in prison as accomplices of three sexual assaults (4 and a half years in prison for each of them).
The definitive failure: necessary cooperator
The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia partially estimated the appeal of the former and considered him an accomplice and non -necessary cooperator of the two sexual aggressions not committed by him, so that he established two penalties for it of 4 years and 6 months in prison instead of 9 years, keeping unalterable the sentence of 13 years in prison for the sexual aggression he committed. That is, the conviction became 22 years.
Now, the Supreme Court elevates the penalties by estimating the claim of the Prosecutor’s Office that what was considered complicity in the sexual aggressions of the three defendants is qualified as necessary cooperation in crimes. The sentence indicates that the defendants “created environmental intimidation, were present by reinforcing all the aggressions, encouraged the authors, deterred the victim, increased and created the risk situation for the legal good refraining after avoiding the three violations , and all this did even without having the reins of the typical positive act that only correspond to the author, not withdrawing his causal contribution, which could have avoided the three crimes – long -term negative act – and his contribution was not sporadic, accidental and expendable, but causally relevant from the point of view of the equivalence of the most effective and substantially valuable conditions and causality from the theory of scarce goods. That is, they were necessary cooperators and not simple accomplices of the crimes of rape. ”
For the High Court the necessary concept of cooperation extends to the cases in which, “there is not yet a preordered plan, the violation occurs in the presence of other individuals without prior agreement, but with awareness of the action that is carried out. These cases the intimidating effect is produced by the simple presence or concurrence of several people, different from which the violation materially consumes, since the existence of the group can produce in the person attacked a state of environmental intimidation. And it is that always intimidation and Group intimidation inexcusably causes the victim to adopt an attitude of submission, not to consent. ”
The Chamber emphasizes that “in multiple sexual aggressions there is an intensification of the intimidation suffered by the victim with an effective decrease in their response capacity, giving all this to a qualitative increase of the G