A Court Acquits ZeC Councilor Alberto Cubero For His Statements Against VOX

A Court Acquits ZeC Councilor Alberto Cubero For His Statements Against VOX

The Criminal Court number 3 of Zaragoza has acquitted the councilor of Zaragoza in Common (ZeC) in the City Council of the Aragonese capital, Alberto Cubero, of the crimes of incitement to hatred, incitement to commit crimes and public dissemination and slogans, of which the VOX political formation accused him, for his statements during a Presidency, Treasury and Interior Commission of the Consistory, held on April 20, 2021 and for a message on his Twitter account.

During the course of said commission, Cubero told the VOX spokesman in the Zaragoza City Council, Julio Calvo, that in fiscal policy and in economic policy “their mask falls off and then what happens to them happens to them, that they go to Vallecas and the they receive as they receive them”, referring to the acts that occurred in the Madrid neighborhood of Vallecas, where members of the VOX party were received violently in 2021.

A few days later, Cubero shared a video of his intervention on his Twitter account accompanied by the following message: “The extreme right must be treated as in Vallecas, it is not discussed with it, much less is it tolerated. They are confronted in every site, may it always be as in Vallecas”.

The trial was held on September 15, in the courts of the Aragonese capital. The councilor of Zaragoza in Common maintained in his statement that his words had an “argumental” intention, because his political formation rejects any type of violence.

The Prosecutor’s Office requested two and a half in prison for the mayor of Zaragoza for his words, along with a financial penalty of 5,400 euros; For its part, VOX requested four years and eight months in prison for hate crimes, public disorder, provocation and apology for the crime, its disqualification and financial compensation of 10,000 euros.

The Penal Court number 3 of Zaragoza has used, in its sentence, that the question “is not whether these expressions are more or less fortunate or typical of a public representative, but whether they constitute a crime and deserve criminal reproach, being the negative answer”.

“The criminal responsibility of the accused is not determined by the greater or lesser seriousness of the Vallecas altercations, but by the content of the expressions made on the social network and, ultimately, if this message constitutes hate speech and creates a greater risk. or less specific for protected legal assets and for the social stability of groups”, adds the legal document.

hate speech
Regarding the crime of incitement to hatred, the sentence has estimated that what happened in the Commission of the Presidency of the City Council of Zaragoza, “does not imply a direct incitement to violence or hatred”, taking into account “the very tenor of the terms used and its literal interpretation, being neutral expressions” and “are not accompanied by insults or humiliating expressions, do not wish for death or physical harm, nor do they require the recipient to perform any action”, in addition to the fact that they occurred “in a practically private sphere, without major transcendence”.

This determination is supported by the statement made by the VOX spokesman at the Zaragoza City Council, Julio Calvo, who testified as a witness, stating that the Commission “is done behind closed doors or with very little assistance, reduced to a circle of a dozen of people, who are the ones who see these interventions and the next day it didn’t even have an impact in the press”.

Likewise, the ruling adds that the “little entity” of the expression expressed is the result of the attitude of those present in the aforementioned Commission, as could also be verified in the reproduction of the recording during the trial, “since there was not a single single sample of disapproval or complaint by the intervention of the accused”.

For this reason, the judicial verdict concludes that, taking into account all the assessments made, “the message subject to prosecution does not have sufficient entity to deserve criminal reproach and considering that the plaintiff political party is not a passive subject of the crime, deserving of that special protection, a sentence is issued acquitting the accused for the charged crime” of incitement to hatred.

Crime of public dissemination
On the other hand, and regarding the imputation to the defendant of the commission of a crime of public dissemination of slogans or messages to commit the crimes, the resolution states that, in relation to the message that is prosecuted, “the sentence must be acquittal”, since that it is a single message that expresses a desire, with neutral terms, devoid of verbal violence and any express reference to the plan, organization or execution of specific acts.

“The message does not have sufficient capacity to directly incite the commission of public disorder,” concludes the court order. You can appeal against this judgment before the Provincial Court of Zaragoza within a period of ten days.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.