The Supreme Court has acquitted a young man who was sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually abusing a minor in Santa Cruz de Tenerifebefore the relevant contradictions between the different versions offered by the girl of some facts that he did not denounce until after six months.
The Criminal Chamber has handed down a sentence, to which Efe has had access, that upholds a man’s appeal and thus annuls the resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands who had confirmed another of the Hearing of Santa Cruz de Tenerife for a crime of sexual abuse of minors under 16 years of age.
This court sentenced him to eight years in prison for sexually abusing the minor whom he had invited along with a friend and another friend on July 20, 2017 to go to his house, where he was going to have a party, which did not take place. .
The Court considered proven that at a given time The 23-year-old young man began flirting with the 15-year-old minor until he sexually abused herthreatening her not to tell anything.
The Supreme Court of Canary Islands This version was confirmed but not so by the Supreme Court, which has acquitted the young man on the understanding that “the minor’s statement has incurred contradictions and gaps of notorious relevance.”
In its first statement police officer, said she was groggy because they gave her something to drink and that the boy massaged her to relax and then had non-consensual intercourse.
The second versionalready in the investigation phase, also stated that she felt bad, that they were sitting on the bed, although she did not remember very well, and that she did not know how but she found herself on top of him and later penetrated her against her will.
On the contrary, at trial his version was significantly different. He said he grabbed her and threw her onto her bed and lunged at her to remove her clothes as he grabbed her, then forcefully sexually assaulted her.
Added to this is the testimony of her friend, who pointed out that the minor told her that the young man had given her a massage and not that he had been a victim of abuse, which would confirm the defendant’s version that he said that he did not have a sexual relationship but that gave a massage.
The Chamber also highlights that “he denounced the events six months after they occurred” with “a confused and very different version from the one he later gave in the oral trial” in which he offered “an account full of gaps and divergences” that “not proof enough” to find the defendant guilty.
Furthermore, it says that “the court should have doubted” because “it is not admissible to base the resolution on a kind of unconditional act of faith in the veracity of the version of the person who claims to be the victim, no matter how repugnant the denounced fact may be”.
For all these reasons, the Supreme Court determines that it is not proven that the defendant sexually abused the minor.