The Supreme Court issued a decision that cleared a defendant who had previously been sentenced to three years in prison. In this scenario, the case involved a brother who is two years older than the accused and is alleged to have sexually abused a seven-year-old girl in 2007. The girl, who claimed to have seen the truth, filed a complaint a decade later, but the court found that the complaint did not reach sufficient levels of verification.
The acquittal was part of a ruling in which the higher court, WMCL, upheld the appeal lodged against the Madrid High Court of Justice TSJM and subsequently affirmed the sentence imposed by the Madrid State Court.
The matter touched on sensitive charges related to sexual abuse against minors. An analytical approach was urged for evaluating cases involving youths, especially when a long period elapsed between the alleged act and its disclosure. The proceedings emphasized the need for evidence that addresses all relevant variables present at the time of investigation.
There was also a cautious stance on whether information provided by siblings should be deemed legitimate or potentially false. The court determined that the information did not meet the required verification and consistency thresholds necessary to prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The judges sought clarification from the Supreme Court on this point.
The Provincial Court of Madrid described an incident in which the accused, while sharing a residence with the minor’s parents and other relatives, took advantage of a moment when the others were asleep. He allegedly placed the girl on his knees and kissed her, with his tongue involved in the interaction.
Both the Supreme Court and the TSJM were criticized for not analyzing several important factors surrounding the case.
Among the considerations cited were questions about the more than ten-year delay in the disclosure of the facts. The discussion included whether the memory might have been recovered or repressed, how the passage of time could affect the reliability of the memory, and whether the precision of a child’s recollection is consistent with the memory trace left by the event.
It was noted that the person who testified did not lend credibility to the alleged victim’s account concerning other claimed abuses. The witness claimed to have suffered and attributed this to the accused as well.
The court acknowledged doubts that could significantly affect the coherence of the alleged victim’s narrative.
Regarding the brother’s statement, the court noted that neither the Court nor the TSJM provided reasons for assigning weight to information given by the witness at the age of nine, ten years after the incident.
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no thorough analysis of the risks associated with false memories arising from a long elapsed period or the absence of details in the witness’s testimony, raising serious concerns about the credibility of the allegations.”