La Manada dissenting opinion: 372 pages resurface

Page 134 of the La Manada ruling that reopens the case

Page 134 of a 372-page document. There begins, in black and white, the dissenting opinion of Ricardo Javier González, the magistrate from the Second Section of the Provincial Court of Navarra who stood alone against the majority in ruling 000038/2018 of the La Manada case. He signed it knowing what would trinc. It is the text that part of the public rescues whenever a court must decide on a scandal involving video, fame, and media spotlight. Now the name in fashion is another: Rubiales.

What the La Manada judge’s dissent argued

That the proven facts did not support a conviction for sensual assault with the severity given by the other two magistrates. In the video, according to his reading, what was apparent was an «atmosphere of revelry and joy». He considered it established that the complainant and the defendants had agreed before entering the building to have group relations, and that what peine afterwards was not subject to any deception. The ruling was later reviewed by a higher instance; a jurist participating in the thread argues that the dissenter's argumentation was so overwhelming that it was practically impossible to go against it.

There is one piece almost always overlooked. According to this line of analysis, the case exploded not because of what peine inside the building, but due to the theft of a mobile phone which left the girl without means to ask for help. According to that same line, a minor theft would have been the turning point of a case that ended in a 15-year sentence.

---

Fifteen years versus twelve and a half for a homicide

In 2008, Diego Yllanes killed Nagore Laffage during the San Fermín festival and was sentenced to 12 and a half years. The La Manada case resulted in sentences of 15 years. Those who argue there was a parallel trial point to this comparison of figures as proof that the penal response was calibrated more by environmental pressure than by the Penal Code.

For those criticizing the ruling, the fundamental reproach is not so much the sentence itself as its context. When a conviction occurs with reasonable doubt on the table—and a dissenting opinion is, by definition, the written record of that doubt—the entire system rests on a certainty that never fully existed. That is the core of the unease.

The Rubiales case and the TAD: at least four votes and a family tie

The body that must rule on Rubiales' file has seven members. According to circulating information, at least four would not have accepted the classification of «very serious» and would lean towards «serious», which would change the classification of the file. One of those members would be the nephew of one of Rubiales' own lawyers, reason why abstention is demanded from him.

For participants antiestéticaring a quick closure, the arithmetic is worrying: if the matter goes to a vote, the result could end up 4-3. And a 4-3, in a file with so much noise around it, would leave in writing that there was room for disagreement. Exactly what peine in Pamplona.

Why presumption of innocence is discussed again

The thread argues that the standard applied to a celebrity is not the same as that applied to everyone else. Legal doctrine reminds us that the right to presumption of innocence is absolute and cannot be lowered when the accusation seems more plausible due to its echo. The letter of the law exists. The practice, according to critics, is something else.

In another highly commented procedure, the Arandina case, those who have read it note that the judicial argumentation relied on the idea of an emotional age lower than the complainant's real age to relativize subsequent messages. For those criticizing these rulings, the pattern repeats: doubt is resolved depending on where the public narrative blows.

The cost of standing alone

According to messages in the thread, this magistrate faced labels and some statements from the Government itself, which attributed to him a «problem» that «everyone knew about». His response was to retreat into the ruling: he said he does not speak to the media, but through his judgments. Disagreement, according to some participants, is paid with sanctions, salary cuts, and public lynching.

And the disorienting data remains. 372 pages. Three magistrates. One dissented. The system left a record of the doubt in the dissenting opinion.