The Supreme Court Military Division in V upheld a settlement following a prolonged case of harassment and humiliation involving four civil guards. The proceedings revealed a pattern of insults, jokes, nicknames, and homophobic remarks directed at a colleague, affecting both personal dignity and professional esteem over a period of years. The Fourth Regional Military Court, based in A Coruna, initially evaluated the case and sentenced the four respondents to prison terms, while also addressing claims of power abuse and discriminatory conduct tied to sexual orientation. The court emphasized that the case required efficient resolution and the avoidance of unnecessary delays.
The appellate decision rejected a portion of the defenses and affirmed the main ruling while clarifying the state’s secondary liability. The state was ordered to compensate the victim with ten thousand euros for psychological and moral harm resulting from the crimes. The first instance court had set this amount and directed the four defendants to share the obligation. The appellate assessment clarified a factual error regarding the omission of the state’s responsibility and reinforced the overall compensation framework.
From 2010 to 2014, the victim reported to the Noia barracks while a Civil Guard Corporal and three senior guards were involved in the alleged misconduct. The victim was subjected to demeaning epithets such as faggot, Maripili, straw, and references to a woman associated with the mail service. The Corporal in particular made explicit statements implying that individuals of the victim’s orientation did not deserve to serve in the Civil Guard. The statements also included expressions of contempt for life allies of the victim and threats of harm, alongside broader threats of recrimination. These facts were established during the proceedings.
Occasional laughter and jokes accompanied the remarks, accompanied by accusations that the victim lacked professional competence and was considered useless or lazy. The documentation indicates the harassment began when the guard joined the Noia Post in June 2010 and continued without interruption until November 30, 2014, a period during which the victim experienced an anxiety crisis and sought medical assistance.
Since late November 2014, the victim has remained on medical leave, requiring ongoing care from health professionals. The medical record describes a chronic and complex mental health condition that necessitates sustained psychological and psychiatric support. The case prompted a thorough examination of the legal responsibilities of the individuals involved and the obligations of the state to protect employees from harassment in the workplace.
On appeal, the defendants argued that their rights were violated and questioned the sufficiency of evidence, including the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court, evaluating the Fourth Regional Military Court’s findings, concluded that the evidence presented by the victim and corroborated by witnesses was credible, consistent, and compelling. The court noted that there were no contradictions or ambiguities in the accounts and that the testimony remained solid, persistent, and persuasive throughout the proceedings.
Overall, the judgment confirms that the combination of personal testimony and witness corroboration sufficed to establish the misconduct while granting appropriate remedies to the victim. The case underscores the seriousness with which workplace harassment and discriminatory behavior are treated within the military justice system and reiterates the State’s responsibility to address injuries suffered by those subjected to such conduct.