Technology

Echenique and Del Olmo, sentenced to pay 80,000 euros for a false accusation of rape

Updated: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 6:23 PM

Published on: 11.17.2020 17:48

Pablo Echenique, spokesperson for United We Can in the Congress of Deputies, and Juanma del Olmo, director of strategy for the second vice-presidency of the government, were fined 80,000 euros for qualifying Manuel López Rodríguez, the man, of “rapist”. In the murder of which, Pilar Baeza, former Podemos candidate for mayor of Ávila, participated as an accomplice. For this, she was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The judge believes that the two committed a crime of illegitimate interference with the right to honor of the deceased, since the two Podemos leaders defended Pilar Baeza during the election campaign when it emerged that the now former Podemos candidate at the mayor’s office of Ávila had been sentenced to prison for supplying the weapon with which Manuel López Rodríguez was assassinated in 1985. She maintained that she had been raped by him and that this was the motive for the murder, but the Supreme Court ruling ruled that this was not proven rape.

“We are talking about events that took place 35 years ago, which refer to a woman who was raped,” Echenique said at a press conference. As Del Olmo spoke on social media: “Hug Pilar Baeza from Podemos Ávila. 35 years ago she was raped. Her boyfriend then shot the man who had her. raped. “

For this reason, in addition to compensation, the judge condemns Echenique to read the title and judgment of the resolution at a press conference and Juanma del Olmo to do so in a tweet.

The accused will appeal the sentence

Sources in the environment of the LaSexta defendants claim that the judge ruled against the criteria of the prosecution, which denied the existence of a violation of the rights of the plaintiff. In addition, they attribute the court ruling to an attack on United Podemos: “The sentence can only be understood when we see that it is two people from Podemos”.

Thus, they assure that the sentence is “contradictory in all its extension”, reason why they will appeal before all the instances. “The sentence cannot be carried out provisionally before arriving at the Supreme Court”, they recall.

Back to top button