The Supreme lowers the sentence of a man who murdered his wife because the daughters' psychologist was not prescribed by a doctor

The

(

) has reduced by eight years the prison sentence of a man convicted of

, whom he abandoned after the events, because - although the girls received psychological treatment- "it is not declared proven that such treatment was prescribed" by a doctor, so it is not possible to convict

his daughters of

In a sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, the court has explained that it

because "the psychological treatment imposed by the clinical psychologist, despite his importance and its possible beneficial effects for the one to whom it is applied, cannot be identified for criminal purposes with the medical or surgical treatment" required by law.

In this sense, they have specified that what is "decisive" is that "a doctor establishes that a certain treatment was objectively necessary for health, given the characteristics of the injuries."

Up to 83 slices

In 11 pages, the Supreme Court has reviewed the proven facts dating back to the night of September 24, 2018, when the accused "attacked" his wife - who was sleeping - "with one or more knives" and generated

.

Their daughters, who were then four and two years old, "were in the house, so it was very likely that they perceived the facts."

According to the sentence, although the woman "woke up and offered resistance", it was "useless" for "the violence of the attack".

The next day, the man left the house around six in the morning and "left his two daughters alone", who were helped by a neighbor, "hearing her crying", seven hours later.

After what happened, one of the minors has presented "

, with significant cognitive, emotional and behavioral impairment with a poor prognosis."

The other girl has been left speechless and with "other emotional and behavioral effects subsequent to post-traumatic stress, with an uncertain prognosis."

It is known that both have received therapy.

Medical treatment

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendant argued that the Basque Country sentence for which he was sentenced does not show that the mental injuries of the minors would have required medical treatment.

In the resolution, for which magistrate

was the rapporteur , the court explained that, certainly, "jurisprudence has understood that it is necessary for the treatment to be prescribed by a doctor as necessary for healing, which excludes cases in which a certain treatment is prescribed by other professionals".

According to the sentence, in this case "it is not declared proven that a certain treatment was prescribed by a doctor, collecting exclusively that the minors received therapy."

In fact, "there is no reference to a doctor at any time prescribing a treatment or holding from the expert's position that, given the appreciable injuries, a specific treatment was necessary for healing."

"It is also not possible, without resorting to a medical expert test, to unquestionably deduce (...) that need," added the magistrates, who, in the absence of one of the requirements established in the law, have estimated the defendant's appeal and He has been acquitted of both crimes of injuries.

Within the framework of the resolution, the court has stressed that although it was "very likely" that the minors witnessed the murder of the mother -because they were in the same house- "it has not been declared conclusively proven".

Likewise, the Supreme Court has stressed that despite the fact that it has been declared proven that what happened caused them "a serious impairment of their mental health", "it is not clearly established" whether the mental disturbance suffered by the minors was due "to the perception of the sounds coming from the fatal assault or the fact of being abandoned, alone in the home, for more than seven hours, although this possibility cannot be ruled out".

For the magistrates, the "absence" of other "more conclusive" data leads them to admit that the "psychic disturbances" of the minors could also have originated in the abandonment suffered, for which the man has already been sentenced, which "prevents "That he be convicted of the crime of injury.

29 years and two months in prison

Thus, the Supreme Court has confirmed the prison sentence of 29 years and two months in prison for a crime of

-with the aggravating circumstance of kinship and gender-, two crimes of

and a crime of

.

It has also ratified the absolute disqualification for 25 years and the special disqualification for four years and two months.

And endorsed the deprivation of parental authority over her daughters for 32 and a half years.

In addition, it has confirmed the prohibition of approaching minors within 500 meters, of their homes or any place they frequent, and of communicating with them for a period of 35 years.

And it has confirmed the compensation of 780,000 euros for minors.

In this sense, the Criminal Chamber has upheld the appeal filed by the accused against the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country to endorse the conviction for murder, child abandonment, habitual abuse and psychological injuries issued by the High Court Provincial of Biscay.

Conforms to The Trust Project criteria

Know more