The authorities appealed the sentence, challenging the verdict and the penalties handed down. The case centers on the follower of the artist Paula Bonet, who received psychiatric detention as part of the sentence. The appeal argues that no reduction or defense should be applied on the basis that there is no proven mental disorder affecting the accused. The defense has contested this point, insisting that there are medical findings indicating a condition that should be considered in assessing responsibility and culpability. Attribution: Court records
In its appeal filed with the Barcelona Court, the public prosecutor, represented by ElDiario.es in the procedural submission, contends that the original sentence did not sufficiently account for the degree of credibility and severity of the conduct. The prosecution argues that there was no adequate mitigation or defense evidence for an alleged erotic-manic disorder or any form of significant mental alteration that would diminish the nature of the offenses. This challenge is framed as a request to reassess the etiological basis of the defendant’s behavior and to tighten the link between alleged disorder and criminal actions. Attribution: Court submissions
The Barcelona criminal court number 10 imposed an 18-month sentence for coercion and a further 21 months for threats, noting that the defense had attempted to demonstrate the defendant’s distress through expert reports. The court also ordered a one-year probation with the obligation to pursue treatment in a recognized facility appropriate to the condition alleged. Attribution: Court judgment
The judge described the defendant, Víctor G T, as suffering from a “pathological” disorder that purportedly “completely conditions his will.” The judgment suggested that although there is no known cure, the disorder could be managed with ongoing treatment and medication. The Prosecutor’s Office, however, disagreed with this interpretation and argued that the evidence had not been weighed correctly during the trial. The appeal argues that the assessment of the evidence was erroneous and that the trial court did not properly consider all expert opinions presented. Attribution: Appellate filings
The defense, representing the accused who sought acquittal, produced an expert report asserting that the young man suffers from this erotic-manic disorder, supporting a claim of diminished responsibility or abnormal mental state at the time of the incidents. Attribution: Defense submissions
Conversely, the case coroner presented testimony indicating that the defendant did not exhibit a clinical picture consistent with an active psychotic process. The court weighed this assessment alongside the expert opinions presented by the defense and a different evaluative stance from the prosecution, ultimately finding a divergence in expert conclusions. The judge concluded that the coroner’s assessment was not aligned with the party’s own expert reports, casting doubt on the narrative of a persistent clinical condition. Attribution: Court review
The sentence recognized that harassment occurred, citing the sequence of public confrontations with Paula Bonet at her appearances and the repeated visits to the Barcelona workshop where she worked. From July 2019 onward, the defendant was described as having engaged with Bonet at multiple events and locations over a span of years, with the conduct spanning three years in a pattern of repeated contact. Attribution: Court findings
The judge also acknowledged the emotional and professional consequences faced by the victim as a direct result of the defendant’s persistent behavior. The clear pressure described by the court contributed to Bonet’s decision to cancel certain public appearances, underscoring the tangible impact on her ability to work and participate in public events. Attribution: Judicial reasoning