The second section of the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has acquitted a civil guard, who was accused of alleged crimes of sexual assault against his partner, habitual mistreatment, threats and coercion, in events that supposedly had occurred in Lanzarote and Tenerife. The ruling, dated February 10, also nullifies the protection order that the woman had and that was agreed on July 19, 2010.
The Prosecutor's Office was asking for 24 years in prison for José María A.B., assigned to the Traffic group of the Civil Guard of La Laguna. The trial was held behind closed doors in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria at the end of January.
The Provincial Court explains in its ruling that "it has not reached the conviction that the accused has committed the crimes for which he is accused" and, furthermore, insists that the account of his ex-partner in the oral trial was "excessively ambiguous, not remembering relevant violent episodes and incurring in contradictions".
The couple maintained a romantic relationship from October 2006 to December 2008, with discontinuous periods in which the relationship ceased due to discussions between them. According to the Provincial Court, during this time "it has not been proven" that the accused "humiliated, harassed or beat" his partner, nor that he "instilled fear in her of causing some harm or forced her to do something against her will".
Nor has another episode been proven of which this civil guard was accused and which supposedly occurred in a hotel in Lanzarote. In this sense, the ruling indicates that it has not been possible to prove that the accused "used force or intimidation to force" the woman to have "sexual relations with him, nor that he left her locked in the hotel room in which they were located".
Likewise, it has not been proven that the accused hit the complainant against the door frame at the end of August 2007 and that, as a result, the woman chipped a rib, and neither that the civil guard gave her "five or six slaps" in April 2008 and left her locked in the house to later kick her out of it.
The ruling emphasizes that it could not be proven that the accused forcefully grabbed the woman's hand, twisted her wrist and hit her forearm, as well as that he pushed her against the television. Furthermore, the judicial ruling recalls that the alleged victim reported the events on two occasions, but in the first she refused to testify and in the second she decided not to continue with the complaint, so in both cases the case was dismissed. And in this sense, the ruling indicates that it was also not proven that the accused called her to "instill fear in her in order to force her to withdraw the complaint".
The victim's statement, "the only evidence of charge"
The Provincial Court insists that the statement of the alleged victim is "the only evidence of charge" in this case and, although she testified with "serenity" in the trial, "her account was excessively ambiguous, not remembering relevant violent episodes and incurring in contradictions".
In this sense, the judicial ruling explains that the woman did not remember "any of the events narrated" in the accusatory writings that supposedly occurred at the end of August 2007 and April 2009. Therefore, it considers that the "imprecisions and contradictions of the complainant" are "evident" and, furthermore, it points out that the woman's testimony is not "totally reliable, given her changes of version".
Likewise, the medical expert report of her alleged injuries was not conclusive, nor were the psychological reports "forceful", while the witnesses who testified in the trial highlighted "the unstable character" of the woman. For all this, and because the woman's account is "too weak to support a conviction", the Provincial Court has acquitted this civil guard of the crimes of assault, habitual mistreatment, threats and coercion.
