ZARAGOZA, 20 May. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) has confirmed the reviewable permanent prison sentence of Norbert Feher, better known as ‘Igor el Ruso’, for the murder of the rancher José Luis Iranzo and the civil guards Víctor Jesús Caballero and Víctor Romero, events that occurred in Andorra (Teruel) on December 14, 2017.
The Chamber has dismissed the cassation appeal filed by the convicted person against the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon (TSJA), which in turn confirmed the sentence issued by a Jury Court of the Provincial Court of Teruel for three crimes of murder in contest with two crimes of assault.
In addition to the reviewable permanent prison sentence for one of the murders, he was sentenced to two sentences of 25 years in prison for the other two crimes and as the author of three crimes of robbery with intimidation to 5 years in prison for each of them. . Likewise, he ordered the payment of compensation, by way of civil liability, of 3,031,740 euros to the families of the three victims.
The court has rejected the only reason for the appeal in which the defense requested the annulment of the conviction for violation of the right to due process due to lack of motivation of the voting record of the verdict of the Jury Court. The Chamber concludes that the motivation contained in the aforementioned record is “sufficient to know the basis of the conviction expressed in the vote on the object of the verdict”.
He has pointed out that in this cassation “the fact that the accused admitted the substantial facts of the accusation and in his qualification brief, admits the cause of the deaths, classifying them as homicide, although in the first of the deaths, admits the action of the accused aimed at causing death, qualifies it as homicide, so the need for motivation must refer to the concurrence of treachery”.
The Chamber has stated that “the authorship, the performance of an act aimed at causing death, is an act admitted by the accused in his statement and in the qualification, so the motivation does not need to identify all the sources of evidence to the extent in that the appellant himself admits them in his statement and in the qualification briefs, and refers to them in the motivation”.
In relation to the murder of José Luis Iranzo, who was shot by surprise by ‘Igor el Ruso’ when the rancher went to his farm, where the accused had entered to steal, the Chamber has ruled that the facts be considered homicide, as and as alleged by the appellant.
“The surprising nature of the conduct, from the statement in the investigation of the case and in the oral trial, where he stated that he shot as soon as he saw him, so the reference to his statement, duly made in conditions of effective contradiction and with reading the content of the statement in the court of instruction, allows to know the foundation of the affirmation of the assumption of treachery, the surprise attack, from the defendant’s own statements, which are outlined in the verdict record, and from the assumption of the qualification of the fact by the defense of the accused. On the other hand, the expert opinions carried out had an impact on the surprise of the attack and the motivation refers to them”.
The sentence, presented by magistrate Andrés Martínez Arrieta, recalled that, regarding the deaths of the two civil guards, who came to identify the suspect, “the appellant also admitted the facts, although he understood that the defense of legitimate defense concurred, acting as a justifying cause for the deaths, which means that the point debated by the defense and prosecution is not so much the cause of death, which is admitted, as the existence of assumptions that qualify the homicide or that justify it”.
It has concluded that the jury motivates the conviction and expresses it from the following argument: “Attacking in a surprise and from behind, shooting the agents with both hands, ending all the ammunition, this not being necessary to kill them”.
The Chamber has added that “as in the previous murder”, Feher had recognized the action, and the debated point is the justification for legitimate defense. Defendant admitted in his deposition to carrying out the action of him firing the two pistols, seventeen bullets, at the two officers before they drew their weapons.”
With regard to the crimes of theft, the Chamber considers that the jury affirms this from the intervention of the effects, their disappearance, and the lophoscopic and DNA tests that were carried out.
Regarding the crime of attack, he states that “it results from the logic of the facts, the accused had already committed a murder and sees three vehicles arrive at speed with armed men, which shows that he belonged to the Security Corps and therefore was hidden. behind a car and acts in a surprising manner. Furthermore, he acknowledges this in his own statement which the jury refers to as the basis for his conviction.”
3
