As reported this Thursday by the TSJ of La Rioja, the Civil and Criminal Division fully upheld the State Court’s sentence.Sentenced Almeida to a reviewable permanent prison sentence 15 years in prison for murder and another sexual assault charge.
The events were tried by a jury at the La Rioja Trial, which aired last April. The defendants were acquitted unanimously on both charges.
At an oral hearing in Logroño, the Chamber dismissed the allegations made by 4 of the defendant’s defense counsel, who sought the application of extenuating circumstances, such as confession and damages, in his appeal.
The appeal further suggested that the aggravating circumstance of treason be excluded, with the understanding that the child’s death was “conditional” because the accused “had no premeditated plan to kill” and that Almeida was “out to look for it” when the death occurred. help”.
The Chamber rebutted the defense’s allegations and concluded in its judgment that it was the defendant’s intention to cause the death of the child, and did not consider this to have been accidental or reckless death.
For this reason, they maintained that the accused had grabbed the minor’s neck from behind with excessive pressure and covered his mouth until he suffocated.
The difference in size between the aggressor and the victim, and the defendant’s decision to take the child home and eliminate the possibility of escaping, defending or seeking help, leaves no room for doubt that his intent, according to the failure, was to cause death.
He also warned the defense that the allegation of treason was not brought up in the first place and therefore could not be brought forward on appeal, as it took away the rights of other parties interfering with the principle of contradiction. this situation.
About sexual assaultcourt decision, the defendant, throughout the process, He did not make a correct statement when he said that the child willingly wanted to have sexual intercourse; He changed his version of events several times and introduced false elements, claiming that he drank alcohol when he was proven not to.
The accused did not confess
He also believes that the basic condition for the application of the confession reduction is not met because “None of the statements made by the accused contributed significantly to the investigation, nor did it speed up or facilitate the process.”
In its appeal, the defense referred to a letter written by Almeida to the prison chaplain, in which she claims to have killed Álex, but the La Rioja TSJ points out: The accused enjoyed the right not to testify throughout the entire preliminary investigation and only testified during the trial..
This letter, which he did not send to any police or judicial authority, “did not make the task of investigating the facts any easier,” according to the sentence.
On the other hand, the defense argued that since the defendant climbed the stairs of the building where he was sitting with his child in his arms, asked for help and confessed what had happened, and had no intention of escaping, compensation for the damage should be considered.
The Chamber stated that “the child was killed with terrible violence”, therefore “compensation for the harm caused by the brutality is not possible” and “here Resurrection is not possible after death, it is not possible to reduce the effects of death.”
In her appeal, Almeida also raised a violation of the principle of “in dubio pro reo”, which provides that the sentence “if there is factual doubt, it should be in the best interest of the accused, but in the interest of the judge when the doubt is in the judge and not in the case”. any of the parties.”
“The court did not express any doubt and based its factual conclusion on the evidence presented at the plenary session,” he stressed.
This decision of the La Rioja TSJ can be appealed to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.