The Court of Violence against Women number 2 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria has sentenced a resident of the capital of Gran Canaria to 12 months and one day in prison who, on September 13, in the presence of his partner, threw the dog they both had as a pet, a four-month-old podenco, off a coastal cliff, causing his death.
The sentence is novel because, applying the gender perspective to the case, it assumes jurisdiction to hear a crime that in principle would not be a matter for the Courts of Violence against Women - the crime against animals typified in article 340 bis 3 of the Penal Code - and relates it, in medial concurrence, to a crime of psychological abuse under article 153.1 of the same legal text.
“Here”, emphasizes Judge Auxiliadora Díaz, “the death of the animal was the instrument chosen to cause psychological harm (…). It is not a mere factual simultaneity, but a specific purpose: to kill the animal to psychologically break the woman”, the sentence emphasizes.
The ruling contemplates as proven facts that on September 13 the accused called his then sentimental partner on the phone, and said: “I am going to kill the dog and then I am going to kill myself”, referring to the almost four-month-old podenco that belonged to both of them.
Then, the sentence continues, he went along the Paseo de las Canteras to the Rincón road, where his partner appeared, with the intention of recovering the pet.
Once there, according to the judicial resolution, the accused told the woman “don't come near or I'll throw the dog and kill myself”.
Immediately afterwards, “and with the intention of undermining the psychological integrity of his partner, he throws the dog off a cliff, hitting it against the breakwaters, which caused his death”.
As a result of these events, the woman presented a picture of psychological affectation that required initial medical assistance, with a healing time “estimated at 90 days”.
Applying the gender perspective, the sentence states, “means understanding that we are facing a case of vicarious violence against a companion animal, whose purpose was to perpetuate domination and control over the woman, reinforcing the need for an aggravated punitive response and effective protection measures”.
By typifying, in addition to animal abuse of the pet, psychological damage to the woman, the judicial authority ensures the protection measure for the affected party: In addition to the prison sentence – which is suspended because the defendant has no criminal record and is less than two years –, the sentence prohibits the defendant from approaching the complainant or communicating with her by any means for two years and one day.
The sentence is final, as the defendant admitted the prosecutor's account as true and agreed to the sentence. The expedited trial was held last Monday, September 22.
