The Supreme has admitted the appeal of Francesco Arcuri to the granting of the pardon to his ex-wife and mother of his children, Juana Rivas, and has placed the Ministry of Justice, according to the document to which the world has had access
At the top court, “in the unpleasant period of 20 days”, the administrative file, where the motivations for the granting of the pardon, which reduced the penalty from two and a half years a year and three months.
Thus, the Supreme Contentious-Administrative Room will review the granting of the measure of grace to Rivas, condemned by subtracting its two first children from the Father and later of justice, for almost a year, between 2016 and 2017
.
Arcuri, as he has let this diary know his lawyer in Spain, Enrique Zambrano, does not pursue the recourse to the pardon that this affects the reduction of the penalty, “although we consider this discriminatory reduction in terms of other cases in which there are currently people
Fulfilling sentence “.
What is pursued “is the non-restoration of parental authority, in the case of a woman who has committed a serious crime against her siors, and also against her father.”
That is what he wants to prevent the resource, “Return the ability to decide on her children to a person who has been convicted of harming them so badly.”
After admission to processing and the shipment by justice of the file, it will be the time when Arcuri’s legal representation must argue the reasons why he estimates that said grace measure should not be granted.
The pardon appended reaches the withdrawal of parental authority over his two children, which Rivas took Spain despite the fact that they were in custody also of his father, and who then kept in his power despite the repeated orders of justice for
Let them restore them to the conjugal household, in Sardinia (Italy).
To also grant the pardon after the resource of his ex-partner, Rivas would recover the parental parental from minors, and the six-year sentence of special disqualification would be replaced by 180 days of work for the benefit of the community.
The Government’s decision occurred after the Supreme Criminal Chamber informed against the total pardon and will not make a decision on the partial pardon then granted.
Eight magistrates supported the measure and eight opposed.
The prosecution opposed the absolute pardon, but supported the partial until it was worth two years, which allowed compliance without prison prison.
