San Sebastián (EFE).- The lawyer for the child who is waiting for a forensic examination warns of the risk of infections
Beatriz Rodríguez Aparicio, lawyer for the child who has been awaiting a forensic examination since he reported being sexually assaulted by a relative in San Sebastián on January 9, has insisted on the need for this test. Not only to locate lesions and biological traces, but also for the possible transmission of a sexual disease.
“When I went – to the Police Station – the first thing I was interested in was that a coroner see the minor to verify a possible forcing and the existence of possible biological traces, in addition to possible sexually transmitted infections (STIs),” recalls the lawyer in a interview granted to EFE.
According to the police complaint, the events were repeated on different occasions over the past two years. In them, the investigated would have taken advantage of the moments in which he stayed with the nine-year-old minor, while his mother went to work, to allegedly sexually assault him.
The last of these episodes would have taken place last Christmas Eve, although the boy did not report the events to his mother until January 8, because the alleged attacker would have threatened to break his game console if he revealed what had happened.
However, the order in which the investigating judge decreed on January 10 the precautionary measures under which the man remains on provisional release, clarifies that “the last access” to the child by the alleged aggressor “must have been on the 29th from December”. However, according to what the minor told his mother, at that moment he would have moved away from the person being investigated.
“Some kind of infection”
On the same January 10, the instructor also initiated preliminary proceedings to investigate the matter. Among other evidence, she ordered the defendant and the victim to take a statement. She also asked the psychosocial team of the courts for “a report on the credibility and psychological affectation” of the minor, but without going so far as to carry out a “forensic exploration test” as her lawyer had demanded.
Since then, the lawyer, who acts ex officio in this case, has claimed on at least four more occasions the practice of this forensic test that has not yet been carried out. The instructor did not authorize it until January 30, but without setting a specific date for it.
In statements to EFE, Beatriz Rodríguez Aparicio now recalls that she already demanded the examination from the first moment in which she went with the victim’s mother to denounce the events in the Ertzaintza premises, where they replied that they had already “discussed with the judge” about this possibility but without coming to fruition.
“Later on, a series of measures were agreed without temporary urgency and instead the forensic examination of the child’s private parts was omitted in case there was forcing or some type of infection.”
“Later on – he specified – a series of measures were agreed without temporary urgency and, on the other hand, the examination by the forensic examiner of the intimate parts of the child was omitted in case there was forcing or some type of infection”.
“Then,” he recounted, “various writings were presented in interest in this procedure that has not yet been processed, despite the fact that it has already been agreed that the child be seen by a forensic specialist but without setting the day.”
All of this, he summarizes, also taking into account that between December 29, in which the order states that “the last incident could have happened”, and the complaint, which was filed at dawn on January 9, “the period of fifteen days. It is the period in which the “protocol” provides that it is possible that there may still be “biological traces” of the aggressor in the victim’s body.
In any case, the lawyer insists that, even if this period had expired by that time, the practice of forensic evidence would have been just as necessary because “we are also talking about the possibility of a possible transmission of an STI” to a child.
Some diseases that, as he reveals, “we do not know if they exist because no analysis has been carried out on the minor and therefore no treatment has been applied because no forensic doctor has been seen.”
Rodríguez Aparicio admits that luckily this whole situation “is not common” in the treatment of victims, because “common sense indicates that it is a primary and urgent procedure, since time plays against” the victims, despite what which “in this case” has not been practiced.