Presumption of innocence
Commentary on the Tribunal Supremo of 16 december 2011
Keywords:
violation, presumption of innocence: declaration of the victimAbstract
In terms of specificity, the Court said that the victim's statement «was loud and clear from the beginning». But without recording the precise terms in which it occurred, so there is no way of knowing what is really spoken, when adjectival in that way. So the result is that on the grounds of the judgment there is total darkness about the background evidence for that conclusion. In the matter of the peculiarities of the action attributed to the defendant, just merely stated qua had abused her, without precision about what, in this case, would have constituted abuse. And without knowing what the term –that it is doubtful that matches your own language– use is really for her. It is true that poverty results from the interrogation of trial related to the limited intellectual capacity of the complainant, but it is also that this deficit affects the quality of information essential to their claims. On the other hand, the court seems to have noticed that the statements of the defendant (person suffering from mental retardation also relevant) were less clear and categorical in the sense of denying existence of any imposition on the complainant of a sexual behavior. Referred to as evidence the statement made by the City Council social worker in the sense that the defendant would have known the facts before it. But apart from that it would be a testimony of reference should not be considered in the presence of a direct witness, happens to be completely unaware of the circumstances of that meeting and the particulars of possible interrogation. It is also a remarkable person with an intellectual disability and especially vulnerable, therefore. The judgment is seen, both a complete lack of specificity of the evidence against him considered, as a practical lack of consideration, also concrete, of the defense. Expresses a conviction which has the generic reference to some partial conclusions on the evidence, without the necessary analysis of its component elements.









