More than 81,000 euros for working 22 days that supposedly did not correspond to him. That is what a man convicted of gender violence crimes intended to collect, who claimed compensation from the State on the grounds that he had excessively served a sentence of community service. However, the National Court has rejected his appeal and has confirmed the decision adopted by Penitentiary Institutions, which in 2015 dismissed that request for compensation. In addition, it has imposed the payment of the costs generated with this procedure.
It was the Criminal Court Number 1 of Arrecife who sentenced this man, who was initially given a prison sentence. However, in December 2006, the Court accepted his request to replace it with community service. In principle, it was planned that he would carry them out in the City Council of Betancuria, in Fuerteventura. However, "due to circumstances that do not appear in the file", according to the ruling, that sentence ended up being served six years later in the Las Palmas II Penitentiary Center. There this man entered after being convicted of other events, and there he began at the same time to serve the previous sentence that weighed on him. In this way, while in prison, he performed those community service, fulfilling both sentences at the same time.
Specifically, as an inmate he was in charge of performing cleaning work in the prison module. And although in theory he had to complete 225 days, he maintained that he had worked 22 more and alleged that this "reveals a malfunction of public services, by not having controlled the days to be carried out." In addition, he maintained that he began doing that work from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and that later the Penitentiary Center changed him to the morning shift, "without informing the interested party or the judge", which "prevented him from taking other courses" taught in the prison at that time.
He claimed sums for five different concepts
For all this, he requested a total compensation of 81,540 euros. Of that figure, only 1,320 euros corresponded to the "salary" that according to him corresponded to him for the 22 days worked in excess. The rest, he added them including different concepts: 3,300 euros for compensation for each day worked, 2,510 for amounts to Social Security, 24,800 euros for moral damages and 49,600 euros "for violation and violation of article 25.2 of the Constitution." That article establishes, among other things, that custodial sentences "may not consist of forced labor" and that inmates will have "the right to paid work and the corresponding benefits of Social Security, as well as access to culture and the integral development of their personality."
However, the Court has rejected all his arguments. On the one hand, it points out that "the works are provided for the benefit of the community and not for the benefit of the administration", so "it cannot be affirmed that they must be remunerated, as they are not works subject to labor legislation." In addition, it emphasizes that it is not a "forced labor" either, and recalls that it was the appellant who requested that commutation of the sentence and who thus obtained the "undoubted benefit of redeeming several sentences at the same time, which would not have occurred in the case of not having given his express consent."
He didn't even "specify" the days worked "in excess"
On the other hand, regarding the substance of the claim, the ruling maintains that not even "the number of days (worked) in excess appear specifically, since the appellant does not indicate or identify the days that correspond to that excess of days." It also questions that at the time "he did not express any complaint, opposition or disagreement" and that it was when he finished serving the sentence "when he began to calculate the days" and ended up claiming this compensation.
In this regard, the Court points out that if he had done so "at the time, the center would have checked what was necessary." That is, "if he worked more days or if they were to compensate for schedule defects due to needs such as communications with family members or lawyers, trips to court, medical or nursing care, activities..." However, when the case reached the Courts, it was already "not possible to recover the information about the working days that he had effectively carried out." What could be verified, according to the ruling, is that during that time he enjoyed several prison permits, which totaled 89 days in which he was not in prison. "Only with these 89 days of leave is the initial argument of the interested party distorted", since "these days in which he did not work would have more than compensated for the 22 days that he says he provided in excess", the Court points out.
Thus, it agrees with the arguments raised by the State attorney, who considered that there was no "basis" to justify this claim. In addition, he alluded to the "disproportionate amount claimed", pointing out that in the "hypothetical case" that the appeal had been upheld, the sum would have had to be reduced "in considerable terms."
"No compensable damage has occurred"
However, not even that reduction of the amount has been necessary. And the ruling concludes that "no compensable damage has occurred", that the appellant was already "imprisoned serving successive prison sentences" and that, therefore, "a hypothetical case of excessive fulfillment of community service days cannot be understood as a situation of deprivation of liberty", beyond the fact that he has not managed to prove that "excessive fulfillment" either, nor demonstrate an "abnormal functioning of the penitentiary administration." And he did not justify the "moral or material damages that he claims to have suffered" either.
"The plaintiff points out that serious moral damages have occurred, but he neither specifies them nor provides any evidence that allows justifying and proving, even through indications or presumptions, that such damages constitute a reality", the ruling points out in this regard.
Regarding the change of shift in which he provided those works in prison, the ruling points out that these allegations "do not seem to have relevance in the case." In addition, it points out that being in the penitentiary center "he does not have to move", that "he can do his work indistinctly at any time", that "the only thing that must be done is the working days" and that "these do not interfere in his treatment program", insisting also that it was he who asked for and accepted to provide that service to commute a prison sentence.