Report 1933

Fourteen of the 15 murdered in 2014 who had reported their aggressor for sexist violence had a police risk assessment "not appreciated » or «low», according to the latest report of the Observatory of Domestic and Gender Violence of the General Council of the Judiciary. The document studies 15 cases because it is dated December 1, so it does not include the two murders of yesterday in Valladolid (the victim had filed a complaint) and in Valencia (he did not). The fifteenth case analyzed -the woman from Madrid who, along with her daughter, died at the hands of her boyfriend and whose bodies appeared in November- is under summary secrecy, a circumstance that means that the report does not have been able to delve into it. The Report on deaths due to gender-based violence with previous legal proceedings in 2014 indicates that even in two of the three cases in which the protection order was in force -Villarejo de Salvanés, Cubillos de Sil and Berja-, the risk was assessed as "low" or "not appreciated". And that danger, whether evaluated high, low or non-existent, always lived in the 47 women in total (plus eight cases under investigation) murdered so far this year. Most did not file a complaint, but the 15 analyzed in the report did. They dared to come out of the intimacy of violence and told the State to protect them: social workers, doctors, policemen, judges... But they died. What went wrong? The 23-page dossier prepared by the Group of Experts of the Gender Violence Observatory of the CGPJ responds to this with its own information and that of the Government Delegation of Gender Violence of the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality. Part of the text was made public last week, but EL MUNDO has had access to the complete report, which reviews, one by one, 14 cases and points out some data on the fifteenth, the fatal story of A. P. and her little **A. ** On January 16, the mother and grandmother of the victims filed a complaint with the Dean of the Courts of Madrid for mistreatment of the three. The CGPJ indicates that, in the absence of receiving the full copy of the case, "it seems that the preliminary proceedings were dismissed", because the complainant was not located in the house indicated by the Court Number 16. The bodies were found two weeks ago, the car is under summary secrecy and the risk assessment is unknown. “More than a majority of victims had a medium to unappreciated risk assessment. Such assessment should not restrict protection options or should avoid a perception of impunity or disbelief”, writes the CGPJ. All the protection orders that the victims requested, eight, were granted. But the judges did not impose on any convict the telematic devices that alert of their approaches to the victims. "We are encouraging training in the matter, taking into account that there has been no homicide/murder with a bracelet." The dispensation from testifying against a family member, “in the wording that is maintained in art. 416 of the Criminal Procedure Law since the 19th century”, is behind many of the resignations, which happened in half of the cases. The will or the coercion - «I hurt myself because I fell», alleged M. J. in the court of Lugo; «It was a fight between the two. The mistake was mine," M said. F. in Arenys two months before she was murdered- provoked files and the resumption of coexistence. In other words, an increase in “vulnerability”. “Victims of abuse don't want their aggressors to go to jail, they want them to stop coming closer. That is why there are regrets when the lawyers transfer the criminal consequences of the complaint to the victims. «Thus -continues the report- the victims come to not want to testify or change their statements to protect their aggressors (...) Specialized training is essential (...) The Court must have elements to assess the objective situation of risk ». And the CGPJ launches a criticism of the waiver: «The wording of 416 generates a good part of the acquittals. And it creates distortions in gender violence. (...) In no other crime, the victim not only does not limit himself to forgiving his aggressor, but he blames himself for his own aggression, and is immersed in the so-called cycle of violence: aggression-denunciation-repentance-aggression (...) This procedural resource is a new instrument of domination at the service of the violent». Three of the killers had a history of assaulting other couples. The report argues that the aggressor must be monitored after serving the sentence, since "a majority of convicts continue to be obsessed with the feeling of ownership that the ex-partner belongs to them 'and to no one else', a fact that provokes permanent persecution. ». And he says that in one of the cases of this fortnight of reported blood, the quick trial took eight months to settle. But it was late: one day before it was celebrated, he killed her. Broken Shields, Dead Lives ---------------------------- ### 18 month hiatus, death in three Three months after it expired the restraining order lasting a year and a half, N. R. P.'s partner ended his life. She had denounced him on September 12, 2011 for degrading treatment and on the 14th, the Investigating Court Number 6 of Vilanova i la Geltrú (Barcelona) sentenced him to six months in prison and a ban on speaking to and approaching the woman unless 1,000 meters for 18 months. The sentence was carried out between September 14, 2011 and September 12, 2013. The abuser and the abused lived together again, but on the night of Kings this year, he killed her. "The victim dies not having any precautionary measure or procedure in process," remarks the CGPJ, so there was no risk assessment. "The resumption of coexistence with the aggressor after a complaint and having been sentenced greatly increases the vulnerability of the victim." ### Violence, psychiatry and risk On October 15, 2007, the man who seven years later would end up killing L. H. S. was sentenced for libel to six months in prison and four months of restraint. Later, the Mixed Court Number 1 of Amposta (Tarragona) sentenced him for mistreatment to six months in prison and not to approach him for two years, a stay that ended in February 2010. The Civil Guard and the Mossos followed up during that period. On November 11, 2012, the court ordered the internment of the man in a psychiatric center until the doctors saw fit. But on January 28, 2014, the woman was murdered "without having any precautionary measures in force." «The relationship continued after the conviction and removal. The victim was in a clear position of risk, with the aggravating factor of the aggressor's psychiatric illness. ### 'No protection measure' MDP also died without any protection measure or police risk assessment, at least in the report handled by the Gender Violence Observatory of the General Council of the Judiciary. “This is a situation identical to the previous ones. After the convictions of the aggressor, there is no protection measure in force and the relationship continued afterwards. It all started on March 3, 2009, when the Court of Violence against Women Number 1 of Elche sentenced the accused for mistreatment at home to six months in prison, deprivation of the right to own weapons for 16 months and the prohibition of communication and approach to the victim or his home for 14 months. The measure ceased to be in force in 2010. But four years and no protection later, on January 30, 2014, the woman was murdered. ### Background, pardon and file The Mixed Court Number 6 of Arenys did not consider proven the mistreatment of M. F. and on April 6, 2013 it dismissed. On September 29, the woman filed a complaint again and Court Number 1 ordered a removal. Two weeks later, the Mixed Court 3 decreed freedom without bail because the woman violated the protection, accepted the waiver to testify and denied the facts. "We want to withdraw the restraining order, because it was a fight and my mistake," he said. On October 11, Court Number 3 shelved the case and on October 22, Court Number 6 annulled the protection. That Court opened a trial for threats on January 10. But 20 days later, it was all over: "The victim dies without a protection order in force." The aggressor had a history of abuse with another partner. “After several complaints and removals, the victim is interested in lifting the measure, placing her in an obvious position of risk.” ### Kidnapping, pregnancy and no protection "I got the wounds when I fell," said M. J. to the magistrate of Court Number 1 of Lugo. She gave that judicial statement on October 18, 2013, four months before the man she had dared to report to the Police murdered her. It didn't even go to trial. Her husband, "after kidnapping her from her family home in Vilaboa", took her to Lugo. Meanwhile, on November 11, the inhibition of the case was agreed in the Court of Instruction Number 3 and on December 3 preliminary proceedings were initiated. However, just two and a half months later, on February 23, 2014, the victim who had denied the facts, probably due to coercion and fear, and also suffered a kidnapping, was murdered by her husband. I was pregnant. "No protection order had been requested," says the CGPJ, which does not reflect any type of police risk assessment. ### She does not testify against him, she files and kills her On April 5, 2012, M. D. F. saw how the Court of Violence against Women Number 2 of Barcelona issued a provisional dismissal order «because the perpetration of acts was not duly justified penal", according to the document of the Observatory of the CGPJ. The legal argument was that the woman had not ratified the complaint that she had previously filed with the Mossos d'Esquadra. It didn't matter that the victim had been living intermittently and apparently without high risk assessments for years with a husband who had been arrested for death threats. The report ensures that the man had "multiple police records and had entered prison for other crimes." On March 28 of this year, the aggressor killed the woman who two years earlier had not wanted to ratify her complaint or testify before the judge against him. ### Three complaints and a violent history M. B. E. denounced three times the one who ended up being her executioner, who had already been prosecuted for the alleged exercise of sexist violence against two other women in the past. The man was denounced by M. B. E. on February 7, March 2 and April 17, 2014. The Court of Violence against Women Number 1 of La Coruña dismissed one of them. On March 5, he initiated proceedings for injuries and family abuse and on April 22, for threats and violence. But he decreed dismissal and filed the case because "there was insufficient evidence to formulate an accusation based on law." Eight days later, before a final sentence was issued, he murdered the woman. Both had resumed living together and there were no precautionary measures, nor did the CGPJ indicate any risk assessment, although the victim had received legal and psychological assistance. ### Three complaints, 'low' risk and murder This story of reported violence begins in December 2006, when the Mixed Court Number 5 of Guadalajara did not grant a protection order and dismissed the case of H. B. Four years later, the woman She denounced her aggressor again and on November 5, 2010, the Court of Violence against Women Number 1 of Arganda del Rey (Madrid) repeated the decision with the dismissal and filing of the case. However, on April 1 of this year, that Arganda court did consider abuse and sentenced a protection order for her and a restraining order for him. The CGPJ report states that the Civil Guard carried out "three risk assessments ranging from low to unappreciated." A month after the judge's decision, on May 5, the man killed the woman in Villarejo de Salvanés (Madrid). It is one of three murders with a protection order in force. ### Protection order in force E.N. twice reported her attacker, who had an active restraining order when he killed her. On April 24, 2013, the Mixed Court Number 5 of Ponferrada sentenced the abuser to four months in prison and a distance from his victim "within a radius of 15 meters" for one year and four months for injuries. Seven months after that car, on November 7, the man was arrested for breaking the distance and assured that he was going to report the woman. In fact, there were complaints between the parties and a restraining order was being processed for the victim with respect to the aggressor. But on June 24 of this year, the man broke the restraining order he had set until August 15 and killed his victim in Cubillos del Sil (León), who was a beneficiary of the ATENPRO telephone, an immediate protection service. It was the second case of death with protection in force. ### The medical report that arrived late Long judicial history of V. F. that began in October 2009, when the Investigating Court Number 2 of Malaga granted him a protection order. Instead, a month later, Court 1 shelved the case "because the commission of the crime did not seem duly justified." And the same was done in December by the Court of Violence against Women. Years later, on July 22, 2014, the Investigating Court 14 of Malaga initiated proceedings and the Violence against Women Number 1 was inhibited, which, in turn, transferred the matter to Number 2. And in that bustle, seven days later, V.F. was murdered "without having any protection measure in force", nor proof of police risk assessment, according to the CGPJ. The report says that the victim went to a medical center, which issued an injury report. He sent it by regular mail to the court but it arrived late: a day after the murder. ### Order in force, unappreciated risk On June 26, 2014, the Mixed Court 22 of Berja (Almería) ordered protection for M. C. and a 200-meter distance for his aggressor. On July 8, the defendant was sentenced for harassment to six days of permanent location and a three-month stay. The report highlights that the complaint was filed in the Court instead of in the police station or the barracks, "so that it did not appear in the Viogen system (comprehensive Interior monitoring system), not being able to make a new risk assessment, which at the time of death it was unappreciated.” He killed her on August 2, with a restraining order in effect, just the day after he served his location-monitoring sentence. The CGPJ affirms that the fact that this location was controlled by the Local Police and not by the National or the Civil Guard, "also put the victim at risk as this information was unknown in Viogen." ### Acquittal and crime without a shield The man who murdered G. D. on October 3 of this year in Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona) had several records of gender-based violence with a previous partner and for which he had been convicted. On June 6, 2008, the Court of Violence against Women Number 1 of Barcelona agreed to a protection order on his previous partner and imposed a restraining order on him that was canceled four months later. On May 5 of the following year he acquitted him. The aggressor changed his wife and on April 14, 2011, G. D. denounced him for "habitual abuse". But on September 1 of that year, the Court of Violence against Women Number 1 of Hospitalet decreed the provisional dismissal of the case. Life went on for a few years until on October 3, 2014, the victim was murdered "without any protection measure" and without risk assessed by the Security Forces. ### No trial was necessary: he killed her a day before The Observatory points to this case as an example of “excessive time” between the “urgent proceedings” and the trial date: eight months. I mean, one day after the murder. In March 2014, the victim reported her aggressor for domestic abuse, but later did not ask for removal or protection. The Criminal Court 16 of Barcelona did not issue any precautionary measure of protection. And he pointed out the "quick trial" for some events that had occurred in March for November 11. It was not necessary to summon the parties because, without a protection measure of any kind in force, or a police risk rating, according to the Observatory report, the aggressor killed the woman on November 10, one day before the trial. The CGPJ document underlines that "in Barcelona there is no specialization of Criminal Courts in matters of violence against women." ### The Prosecutor does not protect, the woman dies Less than a month ago H. J. was murdered in Gerona by the man she had denounced a few months before without obtaining anything from the Justice. “In the absence of receiving all the background information”, the report of the Gender Violence Observatory of the General Council of the Judiciary states that in February 2014, the woman denounced her partner for a crime of threats in the field of sexist violence. The Investigating Court Number 7 of Figueras initiated proceedings against the aggressor, but denied a protection order, which not even the Prosecutor's Office had requested. The victim returned to live with his executioner without protection measures of any kind or police risk assessment that appears reflected in the report. Until November 14 of this year. On that day, the man who had escaped a restraining order nine months earlier ended the life of H. J.