The Provincial Court of A Coruña considers him the writer of against the law of sexual assault The courtroom considers it confirmed that Abuín took her in his automobile to a mountain and raped her In addition to the jail sentence, the magistrates impose compensation of 30,000 euros
José Enrique Abuín, alias ‘El Chicle’, sentenced to everlasting reviewable jail for the homicide of Diana Quer, has been sentenced to 14 years in jail for raping his sister-in-law in January 2005, when she was 17 years previous. The Provincial Court of A Coruña considers him the writer of against the law of sexual assault.
The courtroom additionally imposes a ban on speaking with the sufferer and approaching her for 22 years, in addition to the cost of compensation of 30,000 euros, in keeping with the Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia (TSXG).
The magistrates contemplate it confirmed that the defendant, on January 17, 2005, after calling the sufferer twice early within the morning to inform her that he needed to return some cash to his father, appeared in entrance of her home and satisfied her, “profiting from their household relationship” in order that he would get into his automobile, “claiming that they’d go to gather that cash.”
After the minor entered the car, the defendant, in keeping with the sentence, “drove at excessive velocity” to the San Mamede park, within the Lousame Town Hall (A Coruña), the place the San Lourenzo chapel is positioned, “in an setting forest”. The judges emphasize that this place is “little or no frequented at the moment on a day just like the one on which the information occurred.”
Once there, in keeping with the ruling, after exchanging a number of phrases and taking his sister-in-law’s telephone and placing it away, the convicted man “took out a big knife and confirmed it to the sufferer, whereas passing it to her as a warning its doable use near the physique”.
The magistrates report that with the knife “at all times in hand”, he instructed her to carry out fellatio, to which the minor refused. Then, in keeping with the account of the confirmed information of the sentence, he requested her to undress, gave her a nightgown to placed on, positioned himself above her within the passenger seat and, “conserving the knife in his hand and close to the minor’s physique as a menace”, raped her.
Later, he instructed her that if she instructed anybody what had occurred, “he would kill her, her sister, and her sister’s daughter, who was additionally his daughter, in addition to kill himself.”
The courtroom asserts that, as a consequence of those information, the complainant “suffered substantial modifications in her each day life, with damaging influences in her social, household, sexual, and affective relationships.”
The sufferer’s story is coherent
The Court explains that the elemental components of proof are: the assertion of the sufferer, the testimony of the pal to whom she instructed what occurred that very same day, and the assertion of the brokers who made it in 2005, accompanied by the complainant and by his mom, the visible inspection of the place the place the occasions occurred.
The magistrates perceive that the affected particular person “doesn’t harbor a vengeful will” they usually guarantee that her story is coherent, since “it doesn’t have any logical chapter or with the principles of expertise that stop its analysis.” In addition, they stress that it’s persistent as a result of the complainant “repeatedly maintained the identical model of the information.”
The courtroom additionally affirms that “all of the substantial components of her assertion didn’t change at any time”, in addition to that the account that the minor gave that day of what occurred to her pal and her sister provides “even better help” to her declaration. The judges additionally emphasize that “the varied components of the complainant’s account weren’t refuted by some other technique of proof.”
In the decision, the magistrates stress the probative relevance of the best way by which the complainant first instructed a pal, in highschool, that she had been raped by her brother-in-law. “It is related is that it isn’t about transferring an occasion that’s claimed to have occurred a while earlier than, however moderately that it’s claimed to have simply occurred.”
The defendant didn’t go to his administrative center
The occasions additionally occurred on a day when the defendant had not gone to his job. “Such data reduces the probabilities of making ready a fabled story, since it’s troublesome to maintain {that a} minor beneath 17 years of age ready that situation,” says the courtroom, including that it additionally states that the sexual assault occurred “exactly on the day that the The defendant himself acknowledges that he was not at work”.
Thus, it states that what the complainant might count on at that second was for her brother-in-law to be at work, “in such a means that if what he needed was to falsely impute a gathering along with her, it isn’t affordable that he did so exactly in his working hours”.
“All her rapid habits that day is absolutely according to having simply suffered an occasion such because the one described and makes it unlikely that she responded to a easy simulation,” underlines the Court, whereas indicating that one of many brokers who participated on the day Following the visible inspection of the place the place the occasions occurred, he testified that the minor “was very clear and indicated exactly what had occurred.”
The sentence shouldn’t be last, as a result of an enchantment may be filed in opposition to it.