The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has confirmed the permanent, reviewable prison sentence imposed on a woman for the murder of her husband, suffering from a degenerative disease that caused paralysis in his legs and mobility in a wheelchair, whom she killed by strangling him with a shoelace after failing to suffocate him with butane gas inside a vehicle.
The high court discards the defendant’s allegation that the commission plan responded to her husband’s serious, express and unequivocal will to end his life and thus end his suffering, since “the facts declared proven allow us to affirm without a doubt “some that the appellant did not participate executively in the suicide of her husband, but rather decided to end his life.”
“The cruel way in which the death was caused – trying, first, for Mr…. inhaled butane gas and then suffocated him with a shoelace, but not before hitting him, which caused various injuries, to overcome the poor physical resistance that the victim offered given his near immobility -, the sophisticated execution plan drawn up and the The way in which the body was intended to be disposed of – by pouring quicklime over the remains and burying them in a ditch on a rural property – demonstrates a homicidal intention, far removed from the compassion and respect for autonomy and personal dignity that underlie the treatment. ultra-privileged executive cooperation in suicide in the cases of article 143. 3 and 4 of the Penal Code,” the ruling states.
The Supreme Court adds that the proven facts also rule out that the man expressly, seriously and unequivocally requested the appellant to actively and directly cooperate in causing his own death, and that, on the contrary, they consider it proven that he fully Aware of the seriousness of his illness and its course, ‘on some occasions he expressed his wish to die, without wanting to involve any family member, and sought information about euthanasia. In September 2019 he registered with the Right to Die with Dignity Association and decided to wait to decide on his situation until the announced legal reform that would regulate euthanasia.
That is to say, the ruling highlights that not only did it not transfer to the appellant any express request for active cooperation in the cause of her death, but it also demonstrated a solid will to exercise her personal autonomy during the end-of-life process.
Likewise, the Chamber ratifies the reviewable permanent prison sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice of Valencia, which thus increased the 25-year prison sentence imposed in the first instance by the Provincial Court, taking into account the special vulnerability of the victim linked to his serious and intense disability.
The Supreme Court does not admit that this represents a violation of the ‘non bis in idem’ principle (punishment of the same act twice) because treachery due to helplessness has been appreciated to classify the murder, remembering that “the legislator has selected, among the different modalities of murder in which the perpetrator takes advantage of the victim’s natural inability to react defensively, a very unique social group, namely, the most vulnerable people and, precisely for this reason, most in need of protection.”
“In such a way – the judges indicate – the malicious death of a person who is especially vulnerable due to his disability – which, in this case, prevented him from all mobility – will always be more serious than the malicious death of another person who is not especially vulnerable, who is murdered, for example, while sleeping or under the influence of substances that obtund him.”
According to the confirmed sentence, the accused, who married the victim in 2017, will have to compensate two minor children that the man had with another woman with 283,000 euros.
The man suffered from degenerative cerebellar ataxia, with a degree of physical disability recognized by the Administration of 38% in 2009; 69% in 2014, and 79% in 2018. In 2019, when the events occurred, his illness was in a very advanced state: he depended on third parties for his vital needs; he lacked mobility in his lower extremities; He could not stand on his own, did not adequately coordinate the movements of his upper extremities, and had muscle weakness and tremors.
His body was not found until June 2020, six months after the events. After murdering the man, the accused took the body out of the vehicle where she killed him and, helped by her son, threw it into a grave, which she had dug on a rented plot, wrapped in plastic, throwing earth and stones on it to cover the hole. body and caustic soda and other chemicals to dissolve it, according to proven facts.
