Five years after the events charged and three years after the Granada Court sentenced her to five years in prison for the abduction of her children, Juana Rivas once again captivates the news. It does so for two consecutive reasons. First came the pardon granted by the government, loaded with a political message. And then the suspension of the sentence, requested by Rivas’s lawyer, by Judge Manuel Piñar. One that has unleashed a media storm and several questions.
Chronology. The first of all: why? To understand it, it is necessary to stop at article 80 of the Penal Code, by which judges have the possibility of suspending certain prison sentences under certain assumptions. Namely, that the penalty in question does not exceed two years, that civil liabilities have been satisfied and that the convicted person had offended for the first time. Juana Rivas meets all of them.
The argument. As we have seen on other occasions, commutation of sentences of less than two years is not automatic. Ultimately it depends on the judgment of the judge, who “may” or may not suspend it. Piñar considers that there are other elements that prevent Rivas from being pardoned. There are three: an absence of repentance regarding the proven facts; a reiteration of the same in Italy; and an alleged crime of sexual abuse against one of her children.
Both Joaquim Bosch, a magistrate very active in social networks, and José María de Pablo, a criminal lawyer, have elaborated two threads detailing The arguments wielded by Piñar.
Repentance? According to the judge, Rivas “has not shown regret” and has stated on numerous occasions that “he would do it again.” From Pablo consider “correct” although “debatable” this idea. Bosch yes it positions itself in this regard: “Juan Rivas has indeed expressed that repentance. He has done so in writing in the petition for clemency and in an interview in La Sexta.” He refers to this one, in which Rivas states the following: “I think I made a mistake. I would not do it again, I just wanted to protect my children.”
Recidivism? The most diffuse argument of the three. Piñar explains that Rivas “repeated the same behavior after being convicted in this case and with the minors in Italy.” That is to say, he repeated, this being a red flag for the commutation of any sentence. For De Pablo this would be the “most decisive” aspect if it were true. Bosch is, again, more clear in his position: “There is not even evidence of any criminal procedure in Italy (…) A new case in Italy would be a prominent news item, without there being any data on the subject.”
16.- The expert opinions provided also ended up excluding the abuses. The court ended up filing the case, without any attribution of guilt to Juana Rivas. My opinion is that applying this ground would violate the presumption of innocence. pic.twitter.com/UokWSMvsPU
– Joaquim Bosch (@JoaquimBoschGra) December 12, 2021
Abuses? The last key raised by Piñar is the most explosive. The judge holds Rivas responsible for sexual abuse committed against her son when he was in his custody. Both De Pablo and Bosch consider them insufficiently proven to argue in favor of the suspension of their freedom. “First, they are attributed to a third party, not to Juana Rivas, who is only blamed for a lack of care to avoid it,” he argues. first, “and Article 80 speaks of avoiding the commission of crimes by the convicted person.”
The truth is that the opening of proceedings for those abuses, as detailed in various media, did not get anywhere. The Civil Guard “did not find” evidence to prove the existence of such abuses, not attributed directly to Rivas; and the judicial experts found neither “symptoms” nor “psychological indicators” that would give validity to the accusations. “The court ended up filing the case, without any attribution of blame to Juana Rivas,” recalls Bosch.
The tour. This point is not only the most controversial and the one that has raised the most media dust, but also the one that most eagerly wishes to fight the defense of Rivas. His lawyer has denounced to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Children’s Ombudsman the disclosure of the case and has appealed Piñar’s resolution. Ultimately, the order comes from the Criminal Court 1 of Granada, so the Provincial Court of Granada will have to position itself either for or against.
Image: GTRES