Pedophilia Case: 2021 Alicante Conviction and Supreme Court Ruling

The Alicante State Court delivered a conviction in 2021 for the man described as a computer programmer. The decision faced a dismissal on appeal by the Supreme Court of Justice and has been affirmed again by the same court in its latest ruling. [Citation: Supreme Court of Justice, 2021]
Based on the proven facts presented in the initial sentence, evidence shows deliberate downloading and sharing of obscene material involving very young children through the eMule program between January and November 2016. The material included acts of sexual violence against a baby. [Citation: Civil Guard investigation, 2016]
Upon detecting multiple downloads, the Civil Guard sought a subpoena to search the residence and confiscate hard drives, computers, and memory sticks. The tablet used by the spouse was also seized and later returned. [Citation: Police proceedings, 2016]
In numerous memory devices and external hard drives, more than 5,000 files were found that the court described as containing pedophilic images and videos. The material depicted minors in scenes of brutality, degradation, and gross perversions that shocked the observers. [Citation: Court findings, 2021]
The convict argued before the Supreme Court that his presumption of innocence was violated due to irregularities in the investigation and the home search, but the court rejected the argument. [Citation: Supreme Court dispute, 2021]
The defense claimed attempts were made to erase traces of activity, while investigators from the Civil Guard reportedly managed to trace the downloaded files despite efforts to remove evidence. The court described these attempts as highly challenging. [Citation: Investigative records, 2021]
The court also rejected the application of any aggravating factor based on the assessment that the images were extremely violent. [Citation: Judicial ruling, 2021]
The judges noted that if the three files originally shown as samples to warrant the judge’s search were not recovered, it could be due to deletion. Even in such a scenario, the evidentiary value of the material was maintained. [Citation: Judicial reasoning, 2021]
They asserted that interference with a fundamental right can be constitutionally justified when there is a sufficiently reasoned jurisdiction and not merely by later confirmation of the causes or indications. [Citation: Constitutional principles, 2021]
Given the defendant’s education and profession, the Supreme Court did not accept the claim that the individual did not know that files were being shared via the eMule network. [Citation: Court analysis, 2021]