La Audiencia Provincial ratifica la condena a Hugo Mallo por abusos sexuales a la mujer que hacía de mascota del Espanyol


the eighth section of The Barcelona Provincial Court rejected Hugo Mallo’s appeal in relation to the events for which he was convicted last September. On that occasion, the Criminal Court No. 19 of Barcelona made a verdict in which he was accused sexual assault against a woman who worked as Espanyol’s mascot. Some facts that have now been validated by a higher authority.

On this occasion, the court, composed of six judges, fully and unanimously confirmed the reason for the conviction included in the verdict three months ago;It is fully believed that the events took place exactly as the victim reported.“, their honors explain in the resolution. A verdict that eliminates the presumption of innocence that Hugo Mallo tried to rely on by accepting the victim’s testimony and the multimedia evidence presented.

The person who was working as a ‘parakeet’ reported the player for an alleged crime on the turf

Five years after the event

More than five years have passed since the Espanyol-Celta de Vigo match, and the answer remains the same. The past April 24, 2019 Both teams faced each other when during the usual greeting of the players of both teams, the then captain of the Vigo team; He touched her breasts without the consent of Espanyol mascot Carme Coma..

In fact, after the images that could be seen during the broadcast of the match itself, July 11 That year, an oral trial took place where Judge Salvador Roig Tejedor found the plaintiff’s allegations against the defendant footballer to be proven;With the intention of satisfying his libidinal mood and disrupting her sexual integrity, he put his hands under her clothes and touched her breasts, the victim had to stand back and push the accused with her right hand.– he said in his sentence.

Now Hugo Mallo will have to face A fine of €7,000 in addition to full payment of procedural costs. The decision found that the minimum sentence should not have been imposed because “there was no coercion or remorse on the part of the accused towards the victim,” according to the original court document.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *