Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SPANISH COURT has ordered the immediate release of a man who raped and killed three teenage girls, cutting his prison time by 10 years in line with a European human rights ruling.
The killer, Miguel Ricart, was the latest convict to benefit from an October 21 ruling by the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights.
The Strasbourg court said Spain had acted illegally by retroactively cutting short the years of remission that an ETA prisoner had earned from good behaviour.
Dozens of ETA members and other violent convicts in a similar situation then demanded their release under the same European court ruling.
Crime that shocked the country
Ricart raped and killed Miriam Garcia Iborra, Toni Gomez Rodriguez and Desiree Hernandez Folch (seen above in a public information appeal) in 1992 in the eastern Valencia region, a crime that shocked the country. They were kidnapped after hitchhiking to get to a disco not far from their home town. They were raped, beaten and tortured before being murdered. They were aged 14, 15 and 14 years respectively.
“The outlook for his return to society is not favourable,” prisons director Angel Yuste warned this week.
But yesterdat, a court in Valencia ordered his release because of the European court ruling.
The cabinetmaker was condemned to 170 years in jail in 1997 although he actually faced a maximum of 30 years behind bars under Spanish law.
Under a new Spanish judicial policy introduced in 2006, Ricart’s years of remission were subtracted from his full 170-year sentence instead of being deducted from the maximum 30 years of prison time, as was the previous practice.
New policy ruled illegal
The new judicial policy was ruled illegal by the Strasbourg court because it violated the principle that a prisoner’s sentence cannot be increased retroactively.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
He took three lives. He shouldnt have any rights.
Here’s to him being abducted and subjected to 10 times the horrors that he inflicted upon those three girls.
May he die screaming.
Deport him to strasbourg..beside
Where the judges live
He terminated any entitlement to ‘human rights’ by violating the human rights and dignity of those three girls. I cannot, anywhere in my being, comprehend how he anyone could think he should be entitled to live, never mind be released into society. What about all the rest of us law abiding, non-rabid humans? What about our rights???
Didn’t you know, Kitty, in the grand scheme of things ordinary law abiding citizens who don’t commit heinous crimes and don’t earn (sorry, get paid) fabulous salaries come very low down on the pecking order.
Baffles me when people believe they have and demand their rights in prison after they do these horrible acts. Those girls had rights too and he had no problem ignoring them. He’ll probably do this again and although I’d never wish a crime of that nature on anyone, if someone has to be his victim(s) it better be the ones who decided that this sick man is freed into the general public.
Very disturbing news. I hope there are no ‘technical’ escape routes for very serious crimes coming our way. Whatever happened to each EU country having independence in its own lawmaking?
The ECHR is not the EU.
We’ve already seen one escape route for a very serious crime which was not ordered by Strasbourg, just one of our own judges who has no idea what it’s like to be set upon and raped while walking home.
It might be the ECHR and not the EU but the point is valid we have lost control of our own laws. There is a place for ECHR but it has become too involved in cases rather than principles
The ECHR has taken no power from Ireland. It binds the country internationally but it does not penetrate our national law and it’s sanctions on the nation internationally are not all that strong and we only tend to act on their recommendation when we can see we are clearly in the wrong. It’s decisions can only be used in court as a persuasive authority, they are not binding. Even the ECHR Act, 2003 only requires our judges to consider the ECHR as they see fit, not as Strasbourg does and even there only in so far as is possible, which in general means they ignore it altogether.
Thanks Joseph
@joseph
If that’s the case please explain to me why Spanish, German and Irish courts among others usually follow suit on these not legally binding rulings from the ECHR?
The Irish courts rarely do, it has purely persuasive authority, that is not to say the court can not be persuaded, but they rarely are in Ireland. Germany is different, they have a monist system and they have incorporated it at Constitutional status which is wildly different from our ECHR Act which as Statute is below the Constitution and does not adopt it but gives it further effect where possible. The legislature has, on occasion made changes based on recommendations because they are embarrassed. Spain I am not sure about, I’m not familiar with their system.
Are you perhaps confusing this with the European Court of Justice which has nothing to do with the ECHR, it rules on EU law and because of the supremacy of EU law is very much binding.
Thank you, Joseph, very well informed and useful comments
We’ve already had it. It was called the GFA.
Human rights? This person via their horrible crimes is an abomination to the word human, rabid dogs are put down, this dirt bag deserved never to see the light of day again, hopefully karma will meet him on a lonely road
Karma along with a vengeful mob!
Spainish cops should kill him
The European Court of Human Rights is actually inferior to domestic courts and its rulings are not binding on them (although the national government may choose to follow its directions on compensation and costs). For example, the ECHR has said that some British prisoners should have the right to vote. The British Supreme Court ruled in Hirst that they do not and that remains British policy and practice. It is open to the Spanish courts to tell the ECHR to take a long walk off a short plank, politely of course.
It depends on whether you have a dualist or monist system. We, for example, like the UK, have a dualist system meaning that international treaties bind us internationally and the consequences of non compliance are international, the treaty does not permeate national law without us directly incorporating it. Other countries, such as Belgium, are monist and as such any international obligations are automatically binding nationally. It would appear that either Spain runs a monist system or they have incorporated the ECHR into national law to a high degree.
The English have the guts to stand On their own. We don’t
Not true Ronan, our adoption of the ECHR is identical to theirs, we pretty much copied their Act and in fact their judiciary is much more pro active in considering arguments under articles of the ECHR than ours.
This is what’s wrong with society, we want to protect the rights of the lowlifes who carry out the worst atrocities while allowing the weakest of us to starve and freeze to death.
Yes we have got to the stage where wrong is right and right is wrong.
It seems that prisoners human rights are more important than their victims and their victims families
Disgusting and disturbing when a killer has more rights than the victims and their families. He should be publically deballed
Disgraceful decision. I am against the death penalty but this guy should spend the rest of his natural life in prison.
An eye for an eye, I’d be waiting for him.
Maybe there’s a method in their madness, maybe someone is waiting for him, hopefully.
I’m not one for random lynch mob comments, but the crimes of this man are repugnant to any decent person.
I’d shoot him.
Rights do the RIGHT thing an leave that fuking animal to rot in cage where he belongs .!!
ECHR are a bunch of misantrophic lefty activists. No country should be forced to obey to their rulings.
Your understanding of the left is pretty ropey. Marx rejected rights as inconsequential bourgeois window dressing whose only purpose was to give the proletariat the voice to enable revolution. Also, how many true leftist states have good human rights records. Rights are the baby of liberalism which is pure centrism.
Social liberalism is centrism! I salute your understanding!
EU uber alles
The ECHR is not the EU and has nothing to do with it. In fact the EU is not as yet a contracting party to it.
ETA/IRA very close links.
Well he’s hardly going to do this again. The law must be respected.
What a silly comment.
It appears it would be made is jest, sarcasm doesnt translate well in text form sometimes
*in
Says who? There many such examples of this type of individuals. They never change just look back to the Irish vet killed in Australia last year.
I think we are in agreement on this one.
“Savage Comments”….. One one side you defend the rule of law and on the other you condemn diverse opinion.
One think you should remember Dan is that the Law doesn’t always get it right. Barristers, Solicitors, Judges are open to err just like the rest of us. Blind faith should be challenged in all matters.
I’d shoot him too…. In the ‘fundamentals’ and let him bleed slowly to death!
The families of these girls must feel cruelly betrayed. The prison officials don’t seem to confident that he won’t re offend. Three lives taken equalling less than twenty years in prison is pitiful. I’m not a fan of vigilante justice but where three little girls are concerned, I’d make an exception.
A lot of people here are commenting without having A CLUE what the ruling was about, the Journal has made a fantastic effort at messing it up by reporting this story in such a sensationalistic way.
If you are actually interested in the matter, I’d suggest you look up ‘Parot Doctrine’ and read about it. Yes, none of the people freed up under this ruling are ‘nice’ people. They are horrible human beings, but the state cannot behave criminally like it has. The Parot Doctrine that was applied to them was unconstitutionally applied retroactively.
You cannot fix an injustice with another injustice.
Our system might be flawed, but it is the only thing we have, without it, we are just animals. And the spanish government behaved like animals, much like the people they tried to punish.
This ruling was tough, but was right.
Emilio, what if that happened to one of you loved ones? You must be related to those aclu weirdos. Sorry for you.
What if WHAT happened to one of my loved ones, that they were jailed illegally for longer than the constitution states they should be? I’d expect justice.
Sure, you only see one side, fine. Luckily the judges saw the injustice and corrected it.
So a flawed system that allows a man to rape and murder three young teenagers and walk free, is the only thing preventing society descending into the law of the jungle, so must be slavishly followed at all costs?
Is that the gist of your argument Emilio?
Is that what you’re actually trying to convince us of?
Walk free? What are you on about? These people have done their time.
I don’t have to convince anyone, actually, the highest court on this matter has ruled. The ruling is binding. The ones like you had plenty of opportunity to convince the court and failed.
So if it’s law it must be justice and it must be obeyed right?
Here’s a tip Emilio, look at a history book. Not only have the laws of the state not been used to ensure justice, plenty of rulers and governments have used the legal system to enshrine injustice into law. South Africa, Germany.
But there will always be apologists who insist the law is the law. They’re of the same stripe as those who confuse the obeyance of religious tenets with spirituality.
Too limited and lacking in humanity to act from a place of justice or compassion, they rely on a slavish devotion to rules to act as a moral compass.
Emilio, there’s a big difference between a court of law & a court of justice
What about the human rights of the victims??? The victims families??? With all due respect this rapist and murderer does not deserve to have his human rights upheld by any court in my view. He didn’t show any respect to the victims human right for life
It’s not justice people want,but revenge.
For me, his human rights went out the window when he tortured, raped and murdered 3 young girls. In fact could you describe a person capable of this as ‘human’ in the first place?
He needs to be tied to the back of a car and dragged along the road at high speed
Where will the judges stand if this psychopath kills again. It will probably not be their daughters or granddaughters. And yet they wonder why people dislike the European Union.
It’s not the bloody EU and it has no direct links to the EU
There’s an emoticom for sarcasm – :/sarc
That is a farcical situation, and should be brought to a swift and simple conclusion.
Good to see continuity in judiciary throughout Europe
Interesting to see so many people essentially telling the ECHR to go stuff themselves, yet if they made a ruling in favour of something they wanted, they’d be all over it with support.
Make up your mind. You either defer to the judgement of the ECHR, and also the UN, or tell them to go stuff it once and for all.
Miguel Ricart is innocent of the abduction, torture, rape and killing of the three girls. There isn’t any hard evidence at all of his involvement in the crime. Pubic hairs of 5 – 7 individuals were found in the girl’s bodies, none of them matching Ricart or Anglés’ ADN. His trial was a hoax; the real culprits are unknown and free.
I m.spanish and i fell ashamed of my governments attitude… time to stand for what is right!!!
have your say