At dawn, while partying in Ponferrada, he suffered a severe blow to the head, with injuries that almost cost him his life and left him with severe consequences. However, the causes of it “are not accredited.” That “they were not the result of an accidental fall” is clear to the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, which, however, does not consider it proven that they were the consequence of a “brutal aggression” that he denounced at the hands of three young people initially sentenced to death. seven and a half years in prison and now they are acquitted.
The events date back to April 18, 2019, when the alleged 26-year-old victim was inside the Apolo de Ponferrada pub in an obvious state of intoxication, smoking inside and bothering customers.
At one point he argued with a young woman, with reproaches and rebukes, hit her, threw himself on top of her and pulled her hair. He was immediately expelled from the premises.
When the police arrived, they found the young woman attacked in the street, accompanied by her boyfriend and two other friends of his. A few meters away, in a corner, was his assailant, who had dried blood in one of the nostrils and a small cut or bruise on his lip and who, shortly after, would end up undergoing emergency surgery with a subdural hematoma and serious injuries that It would have killed him if he had not received assistance and that left him blind in one eye and eighty percent of the other as a consequence, and aggravation or destabilization of other mental and motor disorders that he already suffered from after having suffered a traffic accident nine years before.
While the initial sentence of the Provincial Court of León considered it proven that such injuries were caused by the boyfriend of the attacked young woman and two friends at the doors of the premises through successive blows and kicks, the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León has estimated the resources presented by those convicted of a crime of attempted murder and their acquittal was ruled out on the understanding that “the circumstances in which he came to suffer such serious injuries are not sufficiently proven.”
The TSJ’s ruling calls into question the two key statements on which the previous sentence was based, that of the victim herself and that of a friend of hers who witnessed the alleged attack. In the first of the cases, the Chamber points out that his testimony is “remarkably confused”, he is not able to specify whether everything happened inside or outside the premises and although he pointed to one of the convicted persons at the scene of the events, he also initially alluded to third parties from a nearby town not related to the events. To this he adds, “the sensitive and comprehensive deficiencies that he himself suffers.”
With regard to his friend, who shows a “coherent story”, the Chamber draws attention to “reasons to also doubt his reliability, which basically consist of how strange and unusual his attitude and behavior are after the events , when he disappears from the scene and does not show signs of life until later dates».
In this context and without denying “all reasonable doubt”, the TSJ considers that the aforementioned story is not “duly accredited” and even introduces other possibilities in which said injury could have occurred. “It cannot be ruled out that, to be expelled from the establishment, force was used and, in the course of the expulsion, he received a strong blow to the head and face,” collects the ruling that acquits the three convicted youths to whom It also exempts the initial compensation of 186,000 euros. On the contrary, the victim will have to pay a fine of 360 euros and financial compensation of 200 to the woman he assaulted that night.
2
