Increased conviction for a sex offender for “frustrating the childhood” of his niece

“N. His childhood was frustrated at just 11 years old, his dignity, freedom and self-esteem were affected and undermined, and his sexuality was highly compromised & rdquor ;. So reads the sentence of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) which raises the sentence from nine years in prison to 12 years for Carlos Gracia Planas for sexually assaulting his niece for five years and that, furthermore, endorses the recording made as proof by the father of the victim of a telephone conversation between his daughter and the accused, as the Hearing of Lleida already did. “Since I was fucking 11 years old, you have me like this & rdquor ;, that October 23, 2018, I blame the girl on her uncle. The magistrates also increase the compensation to the victim from 20,000 to 80,000 euros.

The judgment of the high court, to which EL PERIÓDICO has had access, dismisses the defense appeal and its request to annul the recording of the telephone conversation, one of the evidence that supports the conviction. That day, the minor put the hands-free mobile phone and the father listened to his brother-in-law and recorded it. “I think ours has to end & rdquor;, the girl commented. “Yes?” Asked the defendant. She insists: “Yes. I don’t know, I think it’s not normal & rdquor ;. His uncle answers: “It is not very normal, but it is pleasant, and a lot & rdquor ;. The youngest continues: “It will be pleasant for you, but I don’t know, what you do is sexual abuse & rdquor ;. The uncle replies: “If you see it that way, I don’t know, because it is spoiled; you want, I do not force you to anything & rdquor ;. The least reproach: “I don’t want to, ‘tiet’ & rdquor ;. Later, the defendant accuses the minor of having provoked him and that he went “beyond”. “Since I was fucking 11 years old, you have me like this & rdquor; (& mldr;) “If you forced me, ‘tiet’ & rdquor ;, continued the victim, who was already 16 years old.

The TSJC argues that the “conversation arose from the initiative of the minor and the recording of her father & rdquor; and that the fact that it was the parent who “physically performed & rdquor; the registration “does not affect the secrecy of communications & rdquor ;. It is noted that “it is a minor who participates in the conversation & rdquor; and that he put the loudspeaker for the parent to listen. “It was her father, but it could also have been the minor herself who activated the recording & rdquor ;, she specifies, and later adds:“ It is illogical and contrary to common sense that if several people are together and decide to record the conversation that one of the them, depending on who gives the & rdquor; to register may “be considered illegal or lawful & rdquor ;.

Be believed by her father

The magistrates also deny that with this recording violates the right not to testify against himself no longer confess guilt. The registry, specify the robes, was made “by own decision & rdquor; and before going to the Mossos and having “made the final decision to denounce & rdquor ;.” The main purpose was not to seek the self-incrimination of the accused with deception or tricks, but the need for N. to feel believed beyond any doubt on the part of his parent & rdquor ;, he emphasizes.

Related news

This recording, in the understanding of the judges, constitutes an element that confirm the victim’s version, which they consider “credible”, as there is no “spurious spirit & rdquor ;, nor a cause that justifies an invention & rdquor ;.” N. reported “numerous & rdquor; sexual assaults. His statement, the sentence affirms, was not “vague or generic”, but “rich in detail.” Biological remains were found in two places where the minor places episodes of abuse.

The court justifies the increase of the sentence for the accused for the improper application of the mitigating mitigation of reparation of the damage. “We are facing a very serious crime that will make it difficult to repair the damage suffered by N., so the simple consignment of 12,000 euros (the amount deposited by the defendant to compensate the victim) cannot be credited with a highly qualified mitigating factor “, sustains the sentence.