The Andalusian Supreme Court of Justice (TSJA) sentenced a woman to five years in prison. transgender woman for abuse, as a man, what would his half-brother, underage, the latter living together for several weeks after escaping from a shelter. Therefore, the objection of the defense was partially accepted.
The Malaga Third Department convicted him of a crime. Continuation of sexual assault crime against a child under the age of 16, 10 years in prison, 12 years ban from approaching or communicating with the victim within 100 meters, 10 years probation and 12,000 euros in compensation.
But now, Andalusia Supreme Court, Conviction for continuing sexual abuse aggravated by a dominant-dominant relationship while considering the defense appeal reduces the prison sentence to five years and the compensation to 7,000 euros; despite maintaining the prohibition and probation measure from approaching or communicating with the victim.
Similarly, the TSJA changes the proven factual account, and by mid-2019, according to the sentence Europa Press consulted, The convicted woman, whose name was Juan at the time, went to the minor’s mother’s home in Antequera. (Málaga) “continues to be the son” of the latter, who accepts him “into the house as his own son and therefore as the younger’s brother”.
He stayed for a few days and left, going to the house of the accused, where he was hiding because he was wanted by him while he was being taken to the juvenile detention center from which he escaped with a friend in October of that year. police. Later, the verdict says they went to Ronda, where “they will both occupy a house” and stayed there for a few weeks.
As the TSJA declared that its decision proved, This person touched the victim during the time they were together until the child was arrested.. For the Appeals Chamber, these abuses will be supported by the testimony of the victim, as well as the testimony of witnesses who were with them at the time.
However, he points to the “inconsistency” of his testimony at the trial and the “contradictions” of the instruction that “damage the credibility of the relevant details”; as well as the “cumulus of fundamental differences”, meaning that sexual contacts “exceed external touches” and “cannot be underestimated with a minimum of certainty”.
Likewise, although the decision does not definitively state that the parental relationship exists, The underage “always kept her attached to him in such a brotherly bond.It should be noted that this link is coupled with the significant age difference (21 years) between the two and the consequent ability to influence the minor in a relevant way that limits their ability to make decisions.