Post by account_disabled on Feb 15, 2024 2:31:03 GMT -6
Likewise, he did not consider that it was proven that days prior to May 29, 2018, the accused, with the intention of harming the physical integrity of the minor, hit him on the back, left arm, left leg and genitals, causing the bruises described in the medical part of the proceedings, despite the fact that on May 30, 2018 the Court of Instruction no. 7 of Seville agreed as a precautionary measure to prohibit the accused from approaching the minor within 300 meters of his home or any place where he was located and communicating with him by any means or procedure.
Against the sentence handed down in the first instance that acquitted the accused, the minor's mother filed an appeal alleging an error in the evaluation Netherlands Email List of the evidence, both the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the oral trial, as well as the consistent documentary evidence. in the medical reports of injuries and the photographs in the records , which is why, he understands, the declaration of annulment of the sentence would be appropriate.
The appeal has been upheld by the Provincial Court of Seville, whose magistrates have shared the allegation of the minor's mother when considering that the omission in the evaluation of the evidence of the exposed witnesses and the contradictions revealed between the body of The motivation and the declaration of proven facts are sufficient to consider that his reasoning is erroneous because it is illogical and because it is deprived of sufficient rationality and congruence .
After reviewing the appraisal of the personal evidence made by the trial judge, the Provincial Court considers that the examination of the proceedings evidences a manifestly erroneous conclusion by the Judge for relying “on absurd, illogical, irrational or arbitrary reasoning, which makes it necessary and “A modification of the facts declared proven in the sentence is inevitable with objective criteria and not debatable, subjective or preconceived interpretations.”
Well, in the appealed sentence, the Court of First Instance judge considered the reported facts to be unproven because she considered that there was not sufficient proof of abuse or attacks by the accused towards the minor, despite the fact that, according to the sentence, she did not deny the existence of injuries in the minor, since there is no witness who has stated in the oral trial that he had witnessed aggression by the accused, without sufficient credibility being attributed for the conviction to the testimony of the minor himself .
Against the sentence handed down in the first instance that acquitted the accused, the minor's mother filed an appeal alleging an error in the evaluation Netherlands Email List of the evidence, both the testimony of the witnesses who testified at the oral trial, as well as the consistent documentary evidence. in the medical reports of injuries and the photographs in the records , which is why, he understands, the declaration of annulment of the sentence would be appropriate.
The appeal has been upheld by the Provincial Court of Seville, whose magistrates have shared the allegation of the minor's mother when considering that the omission in the evaluation of the evidence of the exposed witnesses and the contradictions revealed between the body of The motivation and the declaration of proven facts are sufficient to consider that his reasoning is erroneous because it is illogical and because it is deprived of sufficient rationality and congruence .
After reviewing the appraisal of the personal evidence made by the trial judge, the Provincial Court considers that the examination of the proceedings evidences a manifestly erroneous conclusion by the Judge for relying “on absurd, illogical, irrational or arbitrary reasoning, which makes it necessary and “A modification of the facts declared proven in the sentence is inevitable with objective criteria and not debatable, subjective or preconceived interpretations.”
Well, in the appealed sentence, the Court of First Instance judge considered the reported facts to be unproven because she considered that there was not sufficient proof of abuse or attacks by the accused towards the minor, despite the fact that, according to the sentence, she did not deny the existence of injuries in the minor, since there is no witness who has stated in the oral trial that he had witnessed aggression by the accused, without sufficient credibility being attributed for the conviction to the testimony of the minor himself .