Hearing Barcelona The prison authority does not count as proof that the MACC attacked an inmate at Brians 2 prison (Sant Esteve de Sesrovires) like a “sandbag”, as the detainee SB described the action during the trial. The third division court thus acquitted the prison guard. The prosecutor’s office asked for four years and two months in prison for torture. According to the sentence reached by El Periódico de Catalunya, the Iberian Press media to which this newspaper belongs, “The facts attributed by the accusation have not been sufficiently substantiated to suggest that the presumption of innocence has been weakened.”
On November 7, 2016, Defended by attorney Mariona Polo, the MACC was head of the internal service unit in Module 13 of the Brians 2 center. While all the prisoners were in the dining room, the prisoner SB stood up and fled, shouting at the officers. The office where another inmate and an employee of this prison collect rainwater leaking from the roof. SB wanted to warn that the roof is starting to collapse. When the accused saw him, he went to him and ordered him to return to his seat.
At this point, this is where the versions differ. ANDThe prisoner alleges that the prison guard grabbed him in the chest and threw him out of the office and punched him four or five times. While saying “we will talk”, the defendant, as an official who could not get along with him, denied this aggression, which was also confirmed by some witnesses. Only one, another spoke of “violent behavior” by the detained defendant, but made no reference to punches.
No injury, no threat
The judges argued that “it has not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused attacked the prisoner who had no injuries as a result of the events”. Nor has it been proven that the accused official subsequently threatened S.B or pressured his cellmate to accuse him of sexually abusing him, or that he “did not “retaliate against any of them” by taking advantage of their position”.
While emphasizing that the prosecutor presented the detainee’s statement as “almost the only” evidence of the “necessary” charge, the judges also argued that the detainee had a “genuine hostility” that he recognized and recognized by the accused. The court ruling highlights the “absence” of other elements that substantiate the charges ascribed to the officer, giving rise to doubts about the credibility of those stated by the prisoner, “at least in order to overcome the presumption of innocence”.