The Court of Barcelona It does not consider it proven that the prison official MACC attacked an inmate in the Brians 2 prison (Sant Esteve de Sesrovires) as if he were “a punching bag”, as the prisoner SB defined the action during the trial. The court of the third section has acquitted, in this way, the prison employee, who the prosecution demanded four years and two months in prison for a crime of torture. “The facts that are imputed by the accusation have not been sufficiently proven to consider the presumption of innocence weakened,” according to the sentence to which EL PERIÓDICO has had access.
On November 7, 2016, MACC, defended by lawyer Mariona Polo, was the head of the internal service unit in Module 13 of the Brians 2 center. When all the inmates were in the dining room, inmate S. B got up and ran out, giving voices towards the officers’ office, where another prisoner and an employee of this prison were collecting rainwater that seeped through the roof. SB intended to warn that the roof was beginning to give way. When the defendant saw him, he went to him and ordered him to return to his place.
At this point is where the versions are disparate. ANDhe inmate claims that the prison officer grabbed him by the chest, kicked him out of the office and punched him four or five times, while telling him “we’ll talk”. The accused, however, denied this aggression, a version corroborated by some witnesses, as an official who does not get along with him. Only one of them, another prisoner, referred to “violent conduct” by the accused, but did not refer to the punches.
No injuries, no threats
The magistrates maintain that “it has not been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused attacked the inmate, who did not suffer any injury as a result of the events,” they report. Nor has it been proven, in his opinion, that the accused official subsequently threatened S. B, nor that he pressured his cellmate to accuse him of sexually assaulting him, “nor did he retaliate against any” of them “taking advantage of their position”.
The judges emphasize that the prosecutor provided as “almost the only” proof of the “essential” charge the inmate’s statement, at the same time that they allege the existence of “a true animosity” of the prisoner towards the accused, recognized by him. The court ruling highlights the “absence” of other elements that corroborate the accusations attributed to the official, which “leads to doubt the plausibility, at least to overcome the presumption of innocence”, of what was stated by the inmate.