HE Supreme Court approved your sentences Sentenced to 15 to 8 years in prison by the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) sentenced several Romanian citizens and another citizen to prison for a crime. human trafficking for begging. The first one brought a man in 2016 71 years from Romania barcelona He begged so that he could share what he had received, but they kept all the alms they gave him without giving him food or drink; They later sold it to another prisoner for 400 euros.
Supreme court confirms TSJC’s decision reducing the sentences originally imposed by the Barcelona Court by one yearHe was sentenced to 10 years in prison for human trafficking and 6 years in prison for wounding. Amputation of left leg due to gangrenebecause the necessary intervention was not made. The third convict’s sentence was reduced from 10 to eight for the first crime. The trio were also acquitted of another charge of wounding, for which they were accused of losing fingers on one of their feet.
sentence, which rejects the couple’s objections in their entiretydeclares that it is proved that the marriage is convinced, which the third convicted person expressly opposesWidowed, childless, and living off what her neighbors gave her, the victim comes to Barcelona with them and begs. and let’s share the profit. The problem is, only once in Spain They hid them without even giving him food. no drink.
Even crutches
Remembering that they took away the crutches and documents he used in Romania to move him to a wheelchair, the Second Chamber examines all the evidence conducted by the first instance courts.Eyewitnesses described how they left him where he begged from 7 in the morning until 22:00 in the evening., paying no attention to him throughout the day, he had to relieve himself in a bottle or in the nearby sewer, which he crawled to. Several neighbors described how they had to feed him themselves and when he screamed in pain they called medical services and took him to San Pablo Hospital where they amputated his leg.
“Given this burden of evidence, It is reasonable for the sentencing court to attribute it to the passivity of the convicted persons and their control and carelessness over P.’s activitiesConsidering the deplorable state of health, losing his left legand, as reasonable and judged by the appellate court, It is enough to confirm your judgment.”The Supreme Court explains that it considered that the defendant used “a fragmented view of some of the elements of evidence which he combined as he saw fit” in seeking to acquit.
In this sense, the judges state the following: They did not fully understand the defense’s argument that “the crime of wounding is contrary to the definition of human trafficking.” and Remember”To distinguish possible fraud from conscious guilt, the old example of a classic and reputable teacher talking about some beggars maiming children in the name of charityThat the victims serve these beggarly purposes better alive and under such conditions than dead.” Thus he declares: “If it is easier for a mutilated person to receive alms, it should not be considered a crime to transport someone from Romania under these conditions.” nor willful injury. An argument that neither excludes crime nor human trafficking, quite the opposite.