Jobs and Employment Information about jobs, labors, experiencies and news Related Articles
The case of Juana Rivas is like a rope that is pulled tight by its ends. Sometimes it goes one way, sometimes it goes the other way, and the game can last as long as the players hang on. Except that on that rope — made up of records, resources, declarations, jurisdictions — in a very precarious balance is Daniel Arcuri Rivas, a boy who turns 11 this Saturday and who, since he was three years old, has lived in a judicial vortex that does not makes a final decision to terminate the case. Daniel, who until now lived in Italy with his father Francesco Arcuri, is already studying at school in his current city of Marocena (Granada), where he is with his mother and older brother.
As he tries to blend into his new surroundings, the courts are abuzz, involving the media, politicians as well as judges. While waiting to see if the Italian court will ratify its decision to return Daniel to his father, the case came to a sudden halt this Friday after Granada’s number 2 court for violence against women did not find that gender-based violence had existed in Arcura’s relationship during Christmas, when Juana Rivas says he sent her dozens of threatening messages and tried to get their young son to testify for him in court against him in Italy for ill-treatment of Daniel. The decision raised the temperature of the case as much as the uncertainty about its outcome. Here are some answers to these doubts.
What decision did the court make in the case of violence against women?
Daniel arrived in Spain on December 22. Soon after, his mother accused his father of alleged coercion of a minor, linked to a court filing in Italy, as well as harassment and gender-based violence, based on numerous calls from Francesco Arcura to Rivas. The complaint was filed in Malaga but was transferred to the Court of Violence against Women 2 of Granada, owned by Aurora Angula, who brought the case. Rivas filed an appeal, explains Maria Martos, one of his lawyers, given the existence of dozens of messages they received that they considered threatening. This is what, as Martos explains to EL PAÍS, was decided this Friday. There is no gender-based violence in this, but he orders it to be investigated as possible domestic violence, which is supported by another court, the one that a few days ago allowed the child to stay with the mother. Rivas’ legal team complains that the judge is ignoring gender-based violence against minors to harm Juana Rivas’ mother. The decisions made in the previous days remain in force, so the child will stay at home with his mother and brother.
Why are there disputes with the judge’s decision?
By 8:00 a.m. Friday, Carlos Aranguez, Rivas’ attorney, told the media of Judge Angulo’s decision, with the magistrate’s assessment: “Reserve this name: Aurora Angulo… who filed the complaint that Rivas filed while fleeing an abuser, on July 12, 2016… It is a very serious fact that a judge specializing in gender-based violence does not understand what bystander violence is.” Hours later, Paqui Granados, Rivas’ advisor from the beginning, released an audio recording in which she says that this court has “once again found itself at the center of the lack of protection for Rivas and her children (…), which again makes a very serious mistake (. ..), the problem of application, which, I would venture to say, has its fundamental cause in the problem of training specialists, as in the case of your honor.”
In the afternoon, the High Court of Andalusia published a letter signed by 107 judges on violence against women in Spain in support of “our colleague Aurora Angula”. “When a colleague is discredited for her professional actions in a particular case that is the subject of enormous media attention, the entire judicial system is ultimately discredited,” the manifesto said, ending with “a firm rejection of the law firm’s actions.” who is entrusted with the protection” of Rivas.
What happened to the Rivas family at Christmas
Daniel’s arrival in Spain caused complaints, mentioned in Málaga due to Arcura’s unexpected arrival in the country as well. Versions of his stay, depending on the sources, differ. According to Rivas’ lawyers, he was in the Granada area from December 22 to 24. According to Enrique Sambrano, Arcura’s lawyer, his time in Spain lasted for the few hours it took him to arrive in Madrid with the child and take the next plane back.
The complaint prompted the Ministry of Home Affairs to activate a maximum alert system in cases of gender-based violence. This report reached the court of Aurora Angulo, who did not appreciate this risk. However, the security forces for some time set up surveillance with the help of a car at the residence of Rivas. The rest is known: the boy was supposed to return to his father on January 2. The mother asked Italy to consider what happened and the investigation being carried out against Arcura there for abusing her children as a risk. Italy said no, and the lawyers went there. In Spain, at the same time, they requested precautions, which they received.
What is the next step? Does the child stay in Spain?
In a few days, a final decision is expected from Italy, confirming Daniel’s return to his father. Permanent residence in Spain is now legally binding, but there are differing opinions as to whether Italy’s decision is final.
Rivas’ lawyers insist that the minor will not be affected because he is in Spain. They advised Rivas that the child should remain with her under the protection of Spanish justice. Aranguez explained to EL PAÍS his confidence that the minor’s stay in Spain will not be prosecuted by the Spanish justice system in any way. “He is a Spanish child at risk who is in Spain. Spanish jurisdiction must protect him,” he concludes.
On the other hand, sources close to the prosecutor’s office unofficially explain to the newspaper that this difference in criteria between courts in different countries does not mean a conflict of jurisdiction, since, ultimately, the decision to be enforced must be Italian. The same sources suggest that the decision to leave the minor in Spain was made due to a possible risk situation that made it appropriate to hear Daniel and that, once heard, it was desirable to temporarily suspend the minor’s return, all protected by the Hague Convention for the Protection of Minors.
The same agreement, which, according to these sources, now requires the final decision of the Italian state after it issues a final resolution, since it is one of the residences. The Equality Ministry, on the other hand, wrote in a statement that the Regulation (2019/1111) of the Council of the European Union “on the international abduction of minors leaves the door open to the refusal to recognize the resolution. another state on issues of parental responsibility, if it is clearly contrary to public policy or the fact that the court jurisdiction corresponds to the country where the minor is de facto located, as long as there is a problem of public policy, considering it a constitutional order in which HE Respect the constitutional rights of all people equally “.
In Spain, there is also the problem of jurisdiction and competence between courts. As soon as the court for cases of violence against women transfers the case to the court of inquiry, it can be assumed that he will be found not guilty. This would result in a jurisdictional conflict that could last for months just to find out which court takes the case.
