This Supreme Court He acquitted a person who was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Assuming that her brother, who is 2 years older than her and who is believed to have sexually abused a 7-year-old girl in 2007, who said she saw the truth, filed a complaint 10 years later, “did not reach sufficient validation levels”.
This was admitted in a sentence where the convicted person by the high court, WMCL, upheld his appeal against the decision of the Madrid High Court of Justice (TSJM) and subsequently upheld the sentence handed down by the Madrid State Court. .
Almighty,”cases sexual abuse An analysis methodology should be used on minors, especially when a significant time has elapsed between the alleged commission and disclosure. evidence that addresses all concurrent variables”.
“We certainly do not confirm that information transmitted by siblings serves a false purpose or could be classified as false. did not achieve sufficient levels of verification and consistency to state the facts of the accusation proven beyond any reasonable doubt“Let the Supreme Court judges clarify.
This Provincial Court of Madrid proved While in the house he shared with the minor’s parents and other relatives, the accused took advantage of a moment when he was alone with the girl while the other residents slept, making her sit on her knees and kissed her. introducing her tongue in her mouth.
According to the Supreme Court, both the Court and the TSJM forego the analysis of important factors.
Among them, he cited reasons that could explain more than ten years of delay in the disclosure of the factswhether it corresponds to a memory that has been recovered or repressed, whether the passage of time has changed it, and whether the precision levels are consistent with the memory trace the event may leave in young children.
Remember that the viewer is himself did not provide credibility to the alleged victim’s account in relation to other alleged abuses He said he would suffer and attributed it to the accused as well.
Almighty,”doubts that significantly affect the coherence of the alleged victim’s story”.
Regarding his brother’s statement, he says, “Neither the Court nor the TSJM gave any reasons for attributing value to the information he gave at the age of 9, ten years after the event.”
“Nothing was analyzed about the risks of false memories associated with the passage of too much time, or the relevance of the absence of details in the witness’s account,” the supreme court concludes.