Confirms the conviction of former leader Juan Manuel del Olmo but reduces his compensation for violating the memory of the murdered man
The Supreme Court (TS) has annulled the sentence of 80,000 euros that was imposed on the parliamentary spokesman for Podemos, Pablo Echenique, for calling Manuel López Rodríguez a rapist, a young man murdered in 1985 in a crime for which the that she was a candidate of the ‘purple’ formation for Mayor of Ávila, Pilar Baeza.
In a sentence, issued on October 13, the magistrates have considered it pertinent to acquit Echenique by concluding that the statements he made were protected by freedom of expression. Instead, they have agreed to confirm the conviction of the former communication secretary of United We Can Juan Manuel del Olmo, although they have reduced his compensation from 80,000 euros to 10,000 euros for having violated the memory of the murdered man.
Thus, the Civil Chamber of the High Court has partially annulled the sentence of the Provincial Court of Madrid that sentenced both leaders to the joint payment of 80,000 euros to the brother of Manuel López Rodríguez for illegitimate interference in the honor of the deceased.
As stated in the resolution, the events date back to March 4, 2019, when Echenique –after holding the Podemos coordination council whose main issue was dealing with the general women’s strike on March 8– offered a conference of press. That day, during question time, a journalist asked him about the information published in the press about the Podemos candidate for mayor of Ávila.
“Regarding the question about Ávila, simply highlight that we are talking about events that took place 35 years ago, which refer to a woman who was raped, and that yesterday Pablo Fernández, general secretary and spokesman for Podemos in Castilla y León, explained the party’s position in this regard and it is a position that we subscribe to from start to finish,” Echenique said.
A day later, Juan Manuel del Olmo posted a message on the social network Twitter in which he sent a hug to Baeza and stressed that he had been a “victim of rape.” Her boyfriend then shot the man who raped her. She was convicted of complicity and paid her debt to society,” he added.
The Supreme Court has concluded that there are differences between Echenique’s statements and Del Olmo’s. As he has specified, one is a response to a journalist who “may be excused” for the “inaccuracy of oral communication”, further accentuated by the “immediacy required” at the press conference. The other, meanwhile, is a “written statement” that could be made with “care and reflection.”
Likewise, the court has stressed that Del Olmo did not limit himself to showing his solidarity with his political training partner, but directly accused the murdered man of having raped Baeza.
In this sense, the magistrates have ensured that the political theses that the leader may defend do not legitimize his conduct. “The fight against gender violence, fully legitimate, cannot be confused with the public and direct accusation of the victim of a murder of being guilty of a violation regarding the reality of which there is no proof,” the court stressed.
Thus, the Chamber has considered that the weighting between Del Olmo’s freedom of expression and the memory of the deceased “must yield a different result.” In his opinion, “the direct accusation to the deceased of having committed a violation was not justified by the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.”
PROSECUTOR SUPPORTED THE APPEAL OF BOTH
In their appeal, Echenique and Del Olmo argued that their conviction had violated the agreement for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. They assured that in the judgment of the Provincial Court of Madrid an “inadequate” weighting was made in the conflict between the right to receive truthful information and the right to memory of the deceased.
The Public Ministry considered it pertinent that the resources be estimated because, in its opinion, there was no violation of the right to honor. The prosecutor, when arguing her decision, underlined that –as the appealed sentence points out– “it would have been more adjusted to reality to say that she claimed to have been raped.” But she stressed that such demonstrations were “clearly” held in an “electoral context to support her candidate.”
In this sense, the Prosecutor’s Office pointed out that although they did not question the violation, in their statements they did not impute the crime to any person or identify them, but instead focused on the Podemos candidate as “victim of rape”.
Thus, the prosecutor assured that the fact that the person to whom he referred could be identified by the “extensive information” previously disseminated could not be attributed to them.
THE ECHENIQUE REACTION
This Monday, Echenique through his Twitter account has reacted to the decision of the High Court. “Surely the definitive acquittal opens the news and occupies hours of talk shows, as happened with the absurd convictions in the first and second instances. Surely so. Because the opposite would be a blatant demonstration of how lawfare works,” she pointed out.
The parliamentary spokesman for United We Can has not commented on the ruling linked to his former party partner.
