Rosell says that two courts failed in the vicarious crime of Sueca

Rosell says that two courts failed in the vicarious crime of Sueca

Relatives of the boy murdered in Sueca, last Wednesday, during the condemnation concentration. / EFE

There are no excuses, believes the delegate against gender violence, for the Family or Gender Violence body to have suspended visits to the 11-year-old boy to the abusive father who killed him months ago

Alfonso Torres

The Government delegate against Gender Violence assured today that in the crime of vicarious violence that occurred a week ago in Sueca (Valencia) there was not only one judicial ruling but there were two.

The also magistrate Victoria Rosell made it clear that the only culprit of the sexist murder is José AC, the 47-year-old father who stabbed and killed his son Jordi on Sunday, April 3, the same day he turned 11, and that He did it to get revenge on his mother, who had divorced him last September, a month after he was convicted of a crime of gender violence. This filicide is her, she pointed out, the only criminal responsible for the death.

But, at the same time, he indicated that in this matter there has also been an institutional responsibility for not having shown "due diligence" in complying with the legal provisions and these rulings were attributed to the courts of first instance and instruction numbers 4 and 5 of Sueca, which are, respectively, those who exercised the Court of Violence against Women (criminal) and Family (civil) in relation to the complaints and demands of this couple.

The delegate of the Government understands that both judicial bodies should have suspended the system of visits of the minor to his father at least six months ago, something that neither did, which would have prevented the abuser, as provided by law since the reforms that entered into in force in July and September of last year, had any contact in April with his minor child.

lack of diligence

In the first place, Rosell explained, the Court of Violence against Women should have acted, because the police report that in August fed the cause for which José AC ended up being convicted already included that the aggressor was in the process of divorce from the woman to the one who attacked According to the law, this court, in view of the police data, should have claimed the cause of divorce from its number 4 counterpart and have resolved it -with withdrawal of the visitation regime included- while processing the criminal case and passing sentence.

Secondly, added the Government delegate, the Family Court should have acted when in September it ratified the divorce decree that had begun with a mutual agreement lawsuit from the couple in July 2021. Rosell considers that the court should have consulted Prior to the ratification of the separation agreement, the System of Administrative Records to Support the Administration of Justice (Siraj), in which all the precautionary measures and sentences issued by the Spanish courts appear, with which the conviction for mistreatment would have been known. and, therefore, changing the divorce ruling with the withdrawal of joint custody from the father and the suspension of the visitation regime.

The government official responsible for the fight against gender-based violence indicated that she is not against the establishment of some automatic and early warning digital system between courts to facilitate coordination between bodies and avoid this type of error, but said that if in this case the visitation regime was not suspended in time, it is because both courts did not act "with due diligence." In short, she summed up, "today there are already sufficient means and enough judicial reforms so that rulings like these are not repeated"

Source link