The Supreme Court sentences five sergeants to one year in prison for workplace harassment of a colleague

The Military Chamber of the Supreme Court has sentenced

of the Army

to

for a crime of workplace and professional harassment of a colleague, also a sergeant, for events that occurred in the Mistral Battery of the Field Artillery Regiment 93 from Tenerife in 2015 and 2016.

In a sentence issued this Thursday, the magistrates have upheld the appeal of the Prosecutor's Office - to which the private prosecution adhered on behalf of the victim - against the sentence of the Fifth Territorial Military Court that acquitted the five accused.

As agreed by the Chamber, the sentence of one year in prison includes the accessory penalty of military suspension of employment and the loss of the right to vote for the duration of the sentence.

In addition, each one must pay jointly and severally to the victim the amount of

for non-pecuniary damage.

Within the framework of the resolution, the magistrates have confirmed the acquittal for the hate crime, considering that the proven facts do not fit into this criminal category.

"Atmosphere of criticism and repeated mockery"

The Supreme Court has considered that in the proven conduct of the five NCOs each and every one of the elements of the crime "related to the exercise of fundamental rights and public freedoms" of article 50 of the Military Penal Code in its modality of workplace harassment occurs and professional.

According to the proven facts contained in the resolution, since joining the Battery the victim "began to receive news about

" made by the five accused, "who questioned his preparation and professionalism" and generated "an atmosphere of criticism and repeated mockery regarding his person".

This situation continued on a regular basis.

"These sergeants, on various occasions, made derogatory comments or made jokes behind the sergeant's back, knowing that she ended up learning about this treatment, through comments from other colleagues or soldiers. These consisted of referring to her as

", is stated in the sentence.

The victim - who "was off duty, rejoining days prior to his change of assignment" - did not report the facts contained in the resolution.

It was the judicial authority who, after taking a statement from him as a witness -in the framework of another judicial proceeding- decided to deduce testimony and investigate the facts reported in these proceedings.

Principles of military behavior

The Supreme Court has revoked the acquittal of the accused, considering that "it is clear from the proven facts that the crime of harassment exists and that there is reiteration; in addition, the Chamber understands that the conduct carried out by those non-commissioned officers is serious."

Thus, the magistrates have specified that "certain conducts carried out in civil life can be classified as criminally inconsequential, while the same events in the military sphere require a punitive response of greater severity according to the principles that govern in the field of the Armed Forces. and the Civil Guard ".

The Military Chamber of the High Court has concluded that the actions of the accused "violate the most elementary principles that constitute essential and defining rules of the behavior of a military man, and that they eradicated a normal relationship of coexistence."

Reproaches the passivity of the controls

Within the framework of the resolution, the magistrates have assured that "the Court's attention has also been drawn to the passivity of the Unit's commanders in the face of the situation described, who did not correct, nor did they even find out what was happening in their Unit despite the fact that the conduct of those NCOs was known, as we have said, even by the troops. "

"In conclusion, the principle of minimal intervention can hardly be invoked in the face of evidence of conduct so clearly inserted in the criminal offense of Article 50 of the Military Penal Code, obviously created to punish this kind of conduct that cannot remain a mere disciplinary reproach, given its more than evident seriousness ", they have pointed out.

The Chamber has not ruled on the subsidiary civil liability of the State, since none of the parties has requested it.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

See links of interest

• La Palma volcano

• Last News

• How to do

• Translator

• Holidays 2021

• Christmas lottery

• 2022 business calendar

• Home THE WORLD TODAY

• Events

• Child Lottery

• Master investigative journalism

• Lardero Child

• Granada CF - Getafe

• Olympiacos Piraeus - Fenerbahce Istanbul

• Maccabi Fox Tel Aviv - Barça

• Olimpia Milan - Red Star

• Levante - Atlético de Madrid