Qualifying" the murder, has not been justified . The Supreme Court emphasizes that the proven fact must be respected, which, in summary, “declares that it is clear that Rodrigo re-entered the premises quickly, attacking the victim from behind, who had no opportunity to defend himself, hitting him strongly with his fist.” the lower back part of his head, and as a result of the blow he received, VL turned around, staggering, and fell to the ground, semi-conscious, and being in that situation, Rodrigo Lanza kicked him in the head, and immediately stood on top of him. continuing to punch him in the face and multiple blows, after which, he kicked him very hard in the head, and left.
” He highlights that this refers, in different ways, to the unexpected and suddenness of the attack, and a voluntary action such that as a result of his action his (the accused) had to represent its causation through the use of means aimed at its execution safely and without defense possibilities. "Magistrate Andrés Martínez Arrieta was the speaker" (Photo: EFE) The Phone Number Data ideological motive in the murder has not been proven The sentence recalls that, according to the proven facts, the accused was informed in the bar by a friend of the victim's extreme right-wing ideology and that, on occasions, he wore suspenders with the colors of the Spanish flag , as well as that “ "The accused shouted insults at the victim, who also responded, with a clear ideological charge, calling him a fascist, that he was in an anti-fascist area and that he did not want Nazis in the neighborhood, so he was not welcome."
But the high court indicates that although at the beginning of the action, even the insults mentioned, the action and the verbal attacks are clearly a reflection of discrimination based on ideology , with "the arrogance of those who insult and harass due to the ideology of the other", At a later point, the interveners are placed in another scenario since it is said that both “had a meeting outside the establishment and VL went back to the back of the bar.” For the Supreme Court, “this second moment has a content that is unknown,” since “it is not known what they talked about and what they discussed outside, only that it was after the insults with an unspecified content,” and that this The latter fact “could have been the determining act of the subsequent aggressive reaction that produced the result of death.” That is to say, as the aggression may have been for a cause unrelated to ideology, in application of the 'in dubio pro reo' principle the aggravating circumstance of ideological discrimination cannot be applied.