A martyr, who lasted three years, lived in the hands of her own father as a minor. The father was sentenced by the Criminal Court to 15 years in prison on 26 counts of sexual offenses against his daughter, including rape and incest.
The (appellate) father appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction, arguing that the court of first instance had wrongly convicted him, without supporting evidence, as the alleged testimony of the complainant lacked conviction, however first instance decision.
The offenses were committed in the period 2010 - 2013 when the complainant was from 9 to 12 years old. A total of nine witnesses testified in support of the allegations, including the complainant, her mother and her sister, and it is noted that the appellant chose to remain silent when he apologized and did not call any witness to defend himself.
The Criminal Court accepted all the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, while in particular, regarding the testimony of the complainant, it stated that it made an extremely positive impression on them and that nothing shook her testimony.
According to the facts of the case, the complainant's mother worked two jobs and was away from home for many hours, with the result that the victim was left alone with her father for many hours. It is noted that the mother's relationship with her husband was very bad, as they often fought and many times the appellant beat his wife and children.
Based on the findings of the Criminal Court, the appellant first raped his daughter in November 2010 when the complainant was 9 years old, followed by five more times until 2013. The minor, fearing that he might harm her and her mother, kept the her mouth closed. The last time the appellant tried to rape this complainant was almost 12 years old and he reacted strongly. Until her complaint to the Police, the complainant was not ready to reveal everything that was happening to her because on the one hand she was afraid of the reaction of her father, who threatened to kill her and her mother if she revealed her rapes and on the other she did not want to upset her mother. of. The complainant revealed her secret for the first time at Christmas 2015 to her boyfriend, while a month later she revealed it to her mother with a handwritten note.
The decision of the Criminal Court was challenged for conviction on the basis of only one ground of appeal. In particular, the defense counsel argued that the Court of First Instance had wrongly convicted the appellant, without supporting evidence, since, as he argued, the complainant's testimony was not of such quality and lacked convincing but also logical coherence, so that the Court could exclusively in it. The appellant's complaint focused on specific points, which concerned the complainant's credibility.
The Supreme Court in its decision notes that the task of the Court of Appeals is not to re-evaluate the witnesses on the basis of its own experience, since the evaluation of the testimony and consequently the credibility of the witnesses, belongs to the Court of First Instance. Therefore, he notes, the Court of Appeal intervenes only if the evaluation of the testimony, the findings or the conclusions of the Court of First Instance conflict with common sense and are objectively non-existent. "Only where there is a rift due to contradictions, empty or essential errors is the intervention of the Court of Appeal allowed", the appellate Court typically notes.
Concluding, the Supreme Court notes that in this case it finds no basis to intervene in the judgment of the Criminal Court in relation to the credibility of the complainant, noting that its alleged contradictions and inconsistencies were not significant enough to adversely affect credibility.
Source: Liberal