The Presiding Magistrate of the Jury Court that prosecuted the crime of the child Ãlex —murdered in Lardero on October 28, 2021— has sentenced Francisco Javier Almeida to a reviewable permanent prison sentence as the perpetrator of a crime of murder and 15 years in prison for a crime of sexual assault.
In addition, as the TSJR has just reported, he is also prohibited from residing in La Rioja and the prohibition of communication or approach to Ãlex’s parents and brother for a period of 10 years after serving time in prison.
On March 30, and after 7 days of trial, the popular jury court unanimously found the defendant guilty of both crimes, murder and sexual assault.
Now the Magistrate of the Provincial Court in his resolution imposes the maximum penalty that our Criminal Code includes and that during the trial was requested by the Prosecutor and by the private and popular prosecution.
In the sentence for the murder and rape of Ãlex, of more than 200 pages, it is considered proven that on October 28, 2021, F.J.A. He tricked 9-year-old Ãlex into his house when he was in the street dressed up and playing with other children. Once in his house, she sexually assaulted him and caused him to die by suffocation.
The convicted man, with the lifeless body of Ãlex in his arms, was surprised by a neighbor and by police officers on the stairs of the same building where he committed the crime.
According to the sentence, the evidence that proves the sexual assault on the minor is the finding of semen in the minor, as well as the DNA tests provided by the Institute of Toxicology.
The jury declared it proven that the violence used by the aggressor “was extreme” due to the injuries found on the child’s body, other than those that caused his death, and due to the tearing of the leggings that Ãlex was wearing and which were Found at the domicile of the convicted person.
The sentence considers that “the injuries show the use of a special brutality, a violence that exceeded that which is inherent in the commission of the crime.”
The Magistrate adds that another aspect that contributes to the certainty of the Jury Court is the “absolute incredibility of the defendant’s version” that the minor would have collaborated in the sexual acts voluntarily, something that is “totally unreasonable, improbable and contrary to the most elementary common sense”.
After the sexual assault, as proven by the Jury Court, the convicted person “stood behind the minor and applied forearm pressure against his neck, first less intense and then extremely strong for 3-5 minutes until the child died of suffocation.” .
The sentence highlights what was declared by the forensics in the trial who affirmed that the violence used by the convicted person against his victim “was extreme and brutal” leaving internal injuries, which are not common when suffocation occurs due to forearm pressure. He adds that, even, the force that was used was superior to what is done in hangings.
In addition, the sentence highlights that, given Ãlex’s age, 9 years, his weight, 28 kilos, compared to the strength and physical complexion of his aggressor “the possibility of defending the minor was non-existent.” To which must be added that the child’s death occurred after suffering a very violent sexual assault at the home of his aggressor, completely isolated, which further weakened him. In this sense, the Jury considered proven that F.J.A. had “direct intent to kill” in order to conceal the sexual assault from him.
Thus, the sentence considers that the facts judged constitute a crime of murder with treachery whose sole purpose was to hide the sexual assault. The death was intentional and the treachery consists of the impossibility of the minor being able to defend himself. The Magistrate, in his resolution, concludes that in view of these facts the penalty cannot be other than that of reviewable permanent imprisonment. In addition, he also takes into account the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, since the F.J.A. he had been convicted of the same crimes before and his criminal record was not expunged.
According to our Penal Code, reviewable permanent imprisonment may be imposed when one or more of the following four cases occur:
In the ‘Lardero Case’ the first two cases occur.
Regarding the crime of sexual assault, the hyper-qualified type of the Penal Code is applied. LO 10/2022 does not apply, which would only be possible if it were more favorable to the prisoner. It is explained in the sentence that in this case it is not, because “the circumstances in which this crime was committed are so serious that the only penalty that should be imposed is the maximum legally established”, and that it is also included in the recent law .
The Magistrate points out in his sentence that to impose the maximum penalty for sexual assault, the age of the victim, his inability to defend himself, the recidivism of the convicted person and his extreme danger have been taken into account.
The sentence also recognizes the right of the parents to receive compensation for civil liability of 300,000 euros for each of the parents and 60,000 for the brother, despite the insolvency declared by the convicted person.
The Magistrate states in his judicial resolution that “any figure that we could think of could never compensate for the damage caused.” In a case as atrocious as this one, using the Scale for traffic accidents, as required by law, to set compensation falls far short.
“Ãlex had his whole life ahead of him and his death has generated for his parents a lifelong and irremediable desolation. Killing someone is something terrible, because it takes away what he has and what he can have throughout his life, but to sexually assault and kill a child is something infinitely more heinous, cruel and evil.”
It is the second time that the Provincial Court of La Rioja imposes reviewable permanent prison as a penalty. The first time was in the case of another minor, the 5-year-old girl Carolina, who was murdered by her mother in a hotel room in Logroño. This ruling was handed down a year ago, on March 14, 2022, and was first ratified by the TSJR and, on February 3, confirmed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.
