I read in the NOW that The Prosecutor's Office requests that the trial of Luis Rubiales be repeated, convicted as a sexual aggressor for the non-consensual kiss on Jenni Hermoso during the World Cup celebrations. The news explains, by the way, that after this first trial Jenni Hermoso said that "although she welcomed a conviction, she thought that the sentences for the accused were insufficient, especially for the crime of coercion, of which they had been acquitted." For both things, Rubiales was asked for two years and six months in prison: one for sexual assault and one and a half for coercion. And I am referring to it because yesterday I was watching a documentary on Netflix about the trial of the Pelicot case. No, you don't need to look at it, the Pelicot case only has the name, and it is a croquette with four pieces of ham and kilos of bechamel from a jar, in the shape of a girl and a boy, who were passing by, who have suffered abuse, and who do it back, given that the woman who gives the dish its title does not come out making statements. The point is that the aggressor, a true aggressor, someone who assaulted the woman and offered her to others while drugged, will spend 20 years in prison, as requested by the prosecution. And among the accomplices is a 32-year-old delivery man, guilty of aggravated gang rape, who will spend seven years, and a 63-year-old pensioner, guilty of the same crime plus the administration of drugs, who is sentenced to five years, but will not go to prison.
We are talking about two different Penal Codes, yes, but they are two requests for a sentence for the same crime. If for Rubiales they asked – and want to ask again – for one year in prison for "assault", does that mean that twenty non-consensual kisses are equivalent to the gang rapes, after chemical submission and subsequent filming, of Gisèle Pelicot's husband? Five non-consensual kisses by Luis Rubiales are equivalent to administering drugs and gang rape. How did this retiree avoid going to prison?
