Liability of the Administration of Justice

A man was sentenced to nearly 18 years in prison for a crime against sexual freedom . He spent a very long time deprived of liberty, but years later his case took a total turn , the sentence was annulled and finally he was acquitted . What was the key reason? During the original trial a crucial piece of evidence was not properly assessed , a biological expert evidence (analysis of seminal residues) whose result indicated that the DNA did not match the convicted person.

After the acquittal, this man claimed compensation from the State for the harm suffered, alleging the so-called liability of the Administration of Justice for judicial error . The point discussed was not only whether he had been acquitted, but something more technical, for the State to compensate for “judicial error,” it is usually required that there is a clear judicial statement that this error was committed. In the case, it was debated whether the criminal review sentence (the one that nullifies the conviction and acquits) also served as "sufficient evidence" of that error, even if it did not use the exact formal label of "judicial error."

The Supreme Court considers that it does, this is not a simple change of criterion or a reasonable doubt that has arisen over time, but rather a judicial error qualified, serious, and evident, because an essential evidence was omitted or not valued that directly affected the meaning of the conviction.

For all this, the right to be compensated is recognized and a compensation of 2,500,000 euros is set, taking into account the enormous duration of the deprivation of liberty and the personal and moral impact of an unjust conviction.