Hearing Barcelona: Acquittal in MACC Torture Case at Brians 2 Prison

No time to read?
Get a summary

Hearing Barcelona reveals that the prison authority’s statements do not count as proof that the MACC assaulted an inmate at Brians 2 prison, located in Sant Esteve de Sesrovires, in the manner described by the detainee identified as SB during the trial. The third division court acquitted the prison guard. The prosecutor had sought four years and two months in prison for torture. According to the sentence reported by El Periódico de Catalunya, a prominent Iberian press outlet to which the newspaper belongs, the claims presented by the prosecution did not reach a level of substantiation that would erode the presumption of innocence.

On November 7, 2016, with the MACC leading the internal service unit in Module 13 of Brians 2, the events unfolded while all prisoners were in the dining hall. SB rose and ran toward the exit, shouting at the guards. An office in the building housed another inmate and a prison employee who were repairing a rainwater collection issue caused by a roof leak. SB attempted to warn that the roof was collapsing. When the accused noticed SB, he approached and ordered him back to his seat.

The accounts diverge at this point. The prisoner contends that the officer grabbed him by the chest, threw him out of the office, and struck him four or five times. While talking, the defendant—acting as an official who would not tolerate confrontation—denied this aggression, a version that some witnesses corroborated. Only one witness mentioned a pattern of violent behavior by the guard but did not specifically refer to punches.

No injury, no threat

The judges stated that there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted SB, who did not suffer injuries as a result of the events. The court also found no evidence that the guard threatened SB or pressured SB’s cellmate to accuse the guard of sexual abuse, nor that the officer retaliated by abusing his position.

The prosecutors had leaned heavily on the detainee’s account, treating it as almost the sole basis for the charge of torture. Yet the court noted a genuine hostility on the part of the detainee toward the accused and highlighted the lack of corroborating material that would solidify the allegations, calling into question the strength of the prosecution’s case and the credibility of the prisoner’s statements, at least to overcome the presumption of innocence.

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Rumors swirl around Sony’s potential portable PS5 era

Next Article

US Strategy on Ukraine Arms Aid: Flexible, Needs-Based Support and Cautious Escalation Limits