In Seville, the No. Seven High Criminal Court rendered a judgment that centers on the involvement of Francisco Xavier Garcia, widely known as El Cuco, who had already faced previous convictions linked to the disappearance and murder of a young woman from Seville in 2009, a case that continues to shape discussions around the city’s criminal history. The court also addressed the conduct of Garcia’s mother, who is currently serving a sentence of two and a half years, for actions tied to making false statements in her testimony within the same legal proceedings in 2011. This judgment underscores the gravity of the offenses and the impact on the victim’s family and the broader community in Seville.
Following the initial hearings held on May 26 and 27, both defendants accepted the factual claims laid out in the prosecutor’s indictment but chose not to respond to the questions posed during the proceedings. The court consequently imposed a combined penalty consisting of two years of imprisonment for perjury, accompanied by a six-month fine calculated at a daily rate of eight euros. The sentencing reflects the court’s assessment of the credibility and accountability of the defendants, even in the face of their refusal to engage with the questioning process.
Representatives for Marta del Castillo’s family expressed that the defendants’ decision to acknowledge the facts in a broad, general way while withholding answers to specific questions would once again “fool Justice” and heighten the pain suffered by the victim’s loved ones. This stance from the family’s legal counsel highlights the ongoing emotional toll of the case and the delicate balance the judiciary seeks to strike between ensuring truthful testimony and accommodating the rights of those involved in long-standing, highly charged proceedings.
Regarding legal liability and civil redress, the court ordered that Marta del Castillo’s parents be compensated jointly and severally in the amount of 15,000 euros. This financial remedy forms part of the broader sentence delivered by the No. Seven High Criminal Court, illustrating the court’s attempt to address the harm caused to the family members while maintaining a clear distinction between criminal accountability and civil compensation. The decision rests on a careful evaluation of the damages suffered by the family, the circumstances surrounding the testimony, and the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.