The Supreme Court has upheld the sentence of lifelong imprisonment with the possibility of review for a man who raped and killed a nine-year-old boy in the town of Lardero, Rioja, on October 28, 2021.
In a ruling reported this week, the Penal Chamber confirms the life sentence for murder, along with an additional 15 years in prison for sexual assault.
The High Court rejects in full the appeal filed by the convict, Francisco Javier Almeida, against the judgment of the Rioja High Court, which had affirmed the verdict of the jury panel that tried the facts.
The court notes that the convict was seen that afternoon sitting on a park bench in Lardero, watching children playing in Halloween disguises, approached the victim, and managed to lead him to his nearby residence.
According to the ruling, once there, the man carried out sexual acts on the child, exploiting his physical strength and using extremely violent means. Immediately after, Almeida caused the boy’s death by asphyxia.
The child could not defend himself
The justices of the Supreme Court stressed that the facts show the offender aimed for the child’s death by asphyxiation in a way that was starkly explicit. They found no room, under standards of social and cognitive minimums, to consider that he did not know or understand that squeezing the neck of a nine-year-old for three to five minutes with extreme force created a specific risk of death or that the outcome would not occur given the circumstances or methods used.
Regarding the element of treachery, the Penal Chamber highlighted that the manner of attack prevented any defense by the child: there was no situational possibility for resistance. The assertion that the victim could have cried out is, in light of the proven facts, deemed entirely implausible.
They clarified that even if the minor did emit a scream, it would not amount to a minimally effective defense that would put the aggressor at risk.
On the request to apply the mitigating factor of restorative intent for not hiding the body, the Supreme Court finds it hard to accept that there was any reparative conduct after the crime. The court notes that delaying the concealment does not amount to a remedy for the harm caused.
The court concluded that the argument borders on showing contempt for the immeasurable pain suffered by the family of the brutally murdered child.