«Chihuahua», «gandula», «rat», «frustrated man in the body of a woman», «lesbian», «comechi- chis» … This is how ESV – also a sergeant – was referred to by Sergeant EJAL, First Sergeant ANS , the PRR sergeant, the GTS first sergeant and the MFG sergeant All of them were acquitted in October of last year according to a ruling issued by the Fifth Territorial Military Court, based in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, which although it admitted as proven facts that they ridiculed to ESV, they reduced authority before the troops and questioned their preparation and professionalism, they reduced the conduct of the five NCOs to “practical jokes”. The ruling concluded that the crimes attributed to them did not fit into the typology of professional harassment or discrimination. The Supreme, however, does not think the same.
The High Court in its judgment of October 28 assumes the thesis of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which filed an appeal in December, and considers, under article 50 of the Military Penal Code, that ESV was subjected to humiliating and degrading treatment that integrates harassing conduct in the workplace or professional. “It follows from the proven facts that the crime of harassment exists and there is reiteration”; Furthermore, the Chamber understands that the conduct of the non-commissioned officers can only be considered “serious”; “It violates the most elementary principles that constitute essential and defining rules of the behavior of a military man.”
“Certain conducts carried out in civilian life can be classified as criminally insignificant, while the same events in the military field require a punitive response of greater severity, taking into account the principles that govern in the field of the Armed Forces and the Civil Guard,” he points out. the Supreme.
The Court does not admit, however, the appeal presented by the private prosecution that sought, in another appeal, a conviction for a hate crime for the allusions to homosexuality of ESV “The typical conduct of this crime”, it states, ” it is to provoke discrimination, hatred or violence ”; “The proven facts do not fit into this type even though the appellant does not understand it,” the Chamber emphasizes. The previous letter already stressed that “the conduct professed by the defendants does not start, nor is it continued, nor does it focus on their homosexual condition,” he says.
The proven facts of the sentences suggest that during the time that the sergeant remained in Tenerife, mockery of her was common behind her back. They referred to her as “a frustrated man in a woman’s body” or “pussycat” (in reference to the animated drawings of the film Grau, my favorite villain); on some occasion when another of her companions was in the Battery hangar, referring to her, complained that “there were many rats”; They branded her as “lazy”, questioning her abilities, the actions she carried out, or they discredited her and professionally disavowed her in front of subordinates. To add insult to injury, the unit commanders “did not correct or find out what was happening” with ESV despite the fact that the actions of the NCOs were known “even by the troops,” according to the sentence.
This is not the first conviction that RACA 93 has as its scenario. The territorial court itself, in a ruling a month after the one issued for ESV, points to the same sergeants as guilty of seriously violating the personal and professional dignity of another colleague of rank, DMG He was also called a “rat”, a “cocksucker”, he was belittled, “reified” and his professionalism was questioned. Like ESV, the noncommissioned officer did not dare to report the conduct of his colleagues in writing, although he did do so verbally.
Both cases were brought to justice when both sergeants testified in a third court proceeding. Another noncommissioned officer brought the situation in the Tenerife Artillery unit to the Military Court. Before the account of both the judge decided to initiate proceedings and the two witnesses, separately, became accusers.