The judge of the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Lugo sentenced a man to pay a fine of 270 euros for committing a crime “an act of a sexual nature” With a pregnant cow on a cattle farm in Castro de Rey. The judge who was considered the author of A A simple crime of animal crueltyHe also prohibited him from practicing a profession, trade or trade related to animals and from possessing them for a period of four months.
In the proven facts, it is stated in the sentence that the author “He tied her head and tail to prevent her from interacting normally.” Hence “imposing a behavior that is not clearly defined, but which, in any case, involves manipulation of the area of the animal’s body under its tail”, which is implied “Shame and humiliation “For a cow that can undoubtedly be considered dangerous.”
The case began with a complaint filed by the farm owner and the cow owner involved. The ruling details that the main evidence is the testimonies of the complainant and his mother, who agreed that the accused was found on the back of the cow, standing on a chair, with the animal’s head and tail tied, and Tell her to stay still.
They both noticed that the condemned man and the gloves he was wearing were stained with feces. The veterinary report confirmed this The cow was not hurt There were no changes in her health or her pregnancy, although the owner had to bear expenses of 30 euros for the consultation, an amount he did not claim in the process.
The judgment highlights that there is no direct evidence of the sexual act, but “the body of evidence from which it is derived, and assessed as a whole, that the accused engaged in sexual conduct with the animal is: what the mother observed about the accused’s attitude towards the animal without him being aware of its presence, unnoticed because, according to the witness in question, the accused was ‘extremely amused’; and what was conveyed by the complainant, and in particular that the accused was He admitted that he “fucked the cow.”“.
In addition, “the remains of feces that were in the place and in the glove that the accused was wearing, according to the two witnesses.” The way the two witnesses saw the cow was tied (with ropes that were not from the cattle farm) – head and tail tied and tail held high; The position he was in when the woman saw him – on a chair and on the back of a cow -; And the chair that was in the place was not from the farm, according to what they said, as the agents there noted, as stated in the report.
The judge ruled out the invalidity of the confession of the facts, although he explained that the confession before the Civil Guard has no independent evidentiary value if it is not supported in court. But he considered that the testimonies and evidence collected during the trial were sufficient. To undermine the presumption of innocence.
“This conduct is therefore consistent with Article 340 bis 4 of the Criminal Code – although it can be excluded that the conduct of the accused in question caused harm.” To the cow Which requires veterinary treatment, not even an infection, as that is clear from the expert veterinarian’s report on the record and is not controversial, it is animal abuse that could also be considered serious, considering that the head and tail were tied to prevent the cow from interacting normally and therefore, not without risks of various kinds to the accused and to the animal itself, the imposition of behavior that is not definitely specified but in all cases It involves manipulation of an animal’s body area under its tail, which in itself, and in combination with the conditions in which the animal was restrained, entailed damage and insult to the cow which could undoubtedly be considered serious.”
About The Author
