The Third Section of the Seville Provincial Court ordered the reopening of the case against a man under investigation for uttering racist insults against footballer Vinícius Júnior during the football match played in the capital of Seville on March 5 2023, more precisely at the Benito stadium. Villamarín, between Real Betis and Real Madrid.
In an order issued on October 14 and notified today Wednesday to the parties in person, the court thus accepts the appeal presented by the popular accusation brought by the National Professional Football League against the order of June 17, 2024. by which The Court of Instruction gave its agreement to the provisional closure of the procedure. In this sense, the Prosecutor’s Office requested the evaluation of the appeal and requested that, on behalf of the investigating judge, a recognition process be carried out in the queue of the accused person.
The complaint was filed due to the events that occurred during the said football match, during which a group of “minority” people who were in the Gol Sur stands of the stadium repeatedly shouted “UUU” and “monkey”, reiterating “you you are a monkey, you are a monkey”, providing photographs of one of them in the complaint and interesting the practice of several evidentiary procedures.
By order of September 7, 2023, a complaint was filed against the person under investigation for alleged hate crime under Article 510 of the Penal Code and a judicial declaration was taken from him and d other witnesses who incriminate him, while the footballer was also summoned, after which the investigating judge, “in a very briefly reasoned resolution”, accepted the provisional dismissal of the case because, according to her, “he It is not possible to know who or who could have been the author or authors. “” of the crime and the facts investigated.
Professional Football League Resource
Against the said archiving of the trial, the popular accusation exercised by the Professional Football League appealed, requesting that the contested order be revoked and that the order of transformation into abbreviated procedure be issued, while the public prosecutor demanded that the investigation continues and a wheel of reconnaissance will be carried out.
The third section of the hearing explains that, in this case, it is necessary to determine “whether the judicial decision which grants the provisional classification of the procedure with the filing of the file is correct or if, on the contrary, it proceeded to premature closure of the preliminary procedure due to the inference of sufficient indicia of criminality to extrapolate that the punishable acts and the reported behaviors of which the prosecution accuses the investigated are sufficient to pursue the accusation, and to order an oral trial once the ‘finished business happens.’
Wheel recognition
The magistrates maintain that articles 311, 776.3 and 777 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that the judge who carries out the summary procedure will carry out the procedures proposed by the public prosecutor or by one of the appearing parties, “if he does not consider them unnecessary “. or harmful. Thus, the right to evidence “is neither absolute nor unconditional, nor does it deprive judges of their power to judge the relevance of the evidence that interests them, so that there is no obligation to admit them in their entirety.”
In the same vein, the Court considers that, in this specific case, the evidence requested by the prosecution for recognition in a queue “must be carried out, because they acquire particular importance in order to be able to determine paternity and if there are sufficient indications of the participation of the person indicted in the facts.
“In short, the investigation into the facts must continue to the extremes indicated, and depending on the result of the evidence and with full knowledge of the facts, the court, with freedom of appreciation, will decide whether or not the facts constitute a crime . “and on the indicative participation of the person indicted”, underline the magistrates.
In this sense, they agree that, with the result of this test and other relevant tests already determined, the judge “must assess with freedom of judgment whether it is appropriate to transform the preliminary procedure into an abbreviated procedure, a decision which This seems premature to us.” – but very predictable – due to poor knowledge of the facts, due to not having provided the relevant evidence requested by the public prosecutor.”
