There is nothing more to add about the judge who refused to impose a reviewable permanent prison sentence in the Marta Calvo case. Jorge Ignacio Palma Jacome was described by Levante-EMV as the man at the center of a case that braided together three completed murders and seven attempted murders, all tied to gender-based violence. The verdict delivered by a jury last July confirmed his guilt in those violent acts, marking a pivotal moment in a case that has left families searching for accountability and lasting justice.
One family spokesperson expressed a mix of disappointment and deep resentment.
The mother, Marisol Burón Flores, stressed that the decision felt insufficient in the eyes of those who have suffered. She noted that a sentence capped with no more than 40 compliance measures appeared to fall far short of the gravity of the crimes and of the impact on the victims’ families. She indicated that this case demands more than a standard prison term and signaled that the families would pursue every available legal avenue to seek a stronger punishment, including pursuing appeals where necessary. This sentiment was echoed in reporting by a publication connected to the same media group, Upgrade-EMV.
Another family member, Marta Calvo’s mother, reiterated that the jury’s verdict was clear and solid, yet she lamented the absence of a reviewable sentence that could address the severity of the offenses. The family intends to pursue further legal action, arguing that the current ruling does not do justice to their daughter. The process, in their view, requires every possible step to secure a sentence that truly reflects the violence endured and the harm caused to the survivor and her family.
Not a peaceful phrase
In the wake of the verdict, lawyers for eleven victims—two of whom are deceased and eight who survived—announced plans to appeal the decision. They said the case should move through the proper appellate channels and, if needed, reach the Supreme Court. Lawyer Juan Carlos Navarro, who spoke on behalf of eight of the victims, emphasized that the ruling did not secure the hoped-for outcome and underscored that the appeals process would be pursued to seek a sentence that reflects the full gravity of the crimes. Isabel Carricondo, another attorney involved, highlighted the diverse experiences of the victims and the complexity of the case, noting that the legal team would press forward with the review in mind.
Similarly, Pilar Young, who represents Marta Calvo’s mother, confirmed plans to appeal the decision. In the Estivella case, the jury’s decision was extraordinarily decisive: a unanimous verdict, nine votes to zero, found that Palma Jacome sexually assaulted the young woman, administered a dangerous drug, and implemented actions that demonstrated male domination, culminating in a murder. These findings were presented as aggravating factors under gender-based violence laws, reinforcing the severity of the offenses and the impact on the survivor and her family.
Acquitted of inflicting pain on families
The defense argued that the crime extended beyond moral harm, contending that attempts were made to obscure the victim’s remains in a way that exacerbated the families’ suffering. Pilar Jové, Marta Calvo’s mother’s lawyer, and Candela Estevez, who also spoke for the family, stated that the first appeal sought not only a reviewable permanent sentence but also recognition of the moral damages caused by the case. They suggested that the law should be used to punish the moral injury inflicted on those left behind, especially in light of ongoing distress and the emotional toll on relatives. The discussion centered on the broader implications of justice for families affected by such crimes, beyond the legal penalties imposed on the perpetrator.
As for Candela Estevez, there was no immediate explanation regarding the circumstances of any potential appeal. The family’s legal representatives have reviewed the decision and indicated that further steps would be considered only after discussion with Marta Calvo’s father and other key family members. The lawyers who advocated for the surviving women emphasized that the sentence did not fully align with what they had argued during proceedings, and they indicated that the appeal would explore all avenues to address perceived gaps in the judgment.
In describing the broader landscape of legal advocacy in this case, representatives for several survivors stressed that the outcome would not deter ongoing efforts to secure stronger remedies for those affected. The focus remains on ensuring that the serious nature of the crimes is acknowledged in the final disposition of the case, and that future rulings reflect the lived experiences and lasting consequences faced by the victims and their families. The legal team underscored that the process would continue, with the goal of achieving a resolution that resonates with the pain endured and the pursuit of justice for survivors and loved ones alike.