The Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, regarding the appeals filed by the defenses of the three former soccer players in Arandina, convicted by the Provincial Court of Burgos for crimes of sexual assault, has agreed to acquit R.C.H. and has reduced the sentences to C.C.S (‘Lucho’) and V.V.R. (‘Viti’), who remain in four and three years in prison, respectively.The Chamber, which has seen the appeals of the three convicts, each of whom had been sentenced to 38 years in prison, has understood that the facts constitute a crime of sexual abuse, committed in the person of a minor, and has appreciated as mitigating factors the closeness of age and proximity in the degree of maturity with the victim.On the one hand, the Chamber has totally excluded R.C.H, who has already been acquitted by the Provincial Court of the events that occurred in his room, arguing the same reasons, although it also acquits him of what happened in the living room of the house.On the other, eThe Court has lowered the guilt of C.C.S. and V.V.R. and has sentenced them to four years in prison for the first and three years in prison for the second, as well as jointly and severally indemnifying the minor with the sum of 10,000 euros, sources from the TSJCyL Press Office informed Europa Press.The sentence indicates that the declaration of the minor -valued jointly with the rest of the evidence, witnesses, experts and documentaries (video, conversations and telephone messages) – It enjoys full credibility regarding the reality of the events that occurred in the living room of the apartment, but it lacks it regarding the way in which they occurred.Specific, the Chamber does not consider the existence of intimidation to be proven, when appreciating the contradictions that are revealed between his statement – in which he attributes what he did with the three convicts (masturbate and practice fellatio on all three) to the blockade caused by fear – and the behavior observed both in the previous moments -in which he exchanged messages of sexual content with one of them and agreed to accompany him to his house the next day-, as in the immediately following ones -in which he left the room, to voluntarily maintain a complete sexual relationship with one of them in a adjoining room (fact declared proven in the judgment of the Hearing that has not been contested) and after what happened boast before his friends.These contradictions, according to the resolution, show cracks in the credibility of the declaration which is also not corroborated by the peripheral elements to it, since neither the witness statements transmitting what the minor herself told them nor the crossed telephone messages at first, allow us to affirm that in the living room of the house she acted against her will when being gripped by fear, a version that she later transmitted to her parents and to the counselor who treated her in Madrid later.Consequently and in use of its faculties, the Court has modified the proven facts, removing the reference to bullying, and has classified them as a crime of sexual abuse to a child under 16 years of age, whose consent has no legal significance since the reform of the Penal Code of 2015, which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16 years. Regarding the criminal responsibility of the appellants, the judgment considers that it should not be appreciated that they did not know the age of the minor, nor did they ignore that sexual acts with a minor under 16 years of age are punishable by law.What the Chamber does value is the closeness of age and the proximity in the degree of maturity with the least, accredited by means of psychological expert evidence, to acquit RCH – who had already been acquitted of the sexual relationship maintained in his room with the girl immediately after the events, prosecuted for understanding that they were both close in age and of a similar degree of maturity- – as well as to mitigate the responsibility of CCS and V.V.R. when evaluating the relative proximity of their ages with that of the victim and their lack of maturity.Updating penaltiesSo that, The Court has sentenced C.C.S. to four years in prison. and three years to V.V.R, with the accessories of special disqualification for the right to vote; prohibition on communicating by any means or computer or telematic instrument, written, verbal or visual contact with the minor; prohibition to approach her, her home, school and any other that is frequented by the victim at a distance of less than a thousand meters and for a period of eight years; probation for a period of five years; and special disqualification for any profession or trade, whether or not paid, that involves regular and direct contact with minors for a period of more than three years than the duration of the sentences of deprivation of liberty imposed respectively.In addition, the Chamber has ordered them to jointly and severally pay civil liability, set at 10,000 euros, and the proportional part of the costs, including those of the private prosecution.The former players, “excited” with the “overturn” of the caseTwo of the three former players of Arandina, Raúl Calvo and Víctor Rodríguez, Viti, have been “excited” by the ruling of the TSJCyL that acquits the former and reduces the sentence of 38 years in prison to Viti and Carlos Cuadrado, Lucho, to three and four years, respectively.Rafael Uriarte, lawyer for Calvo and Viti, explained to the EFE Agency that his clients are “excited” with the judgment of the High Court, which is “much fairer” since the evidence provided by all parties has been valued.The attorney has acknowledged that are “more satisfied with this sentence”, assuring that it is noted that it is made “by a professional of the Law” while in that of the Provincial Court of Burgos the influence of social pressure was noted.Uriarte has highlighted that the evidence provided by both parties has been taken into account, assessing the expertise of mobile phones or the maturity tests of footballers.However, he regretted that the witness testimony of the only eyewitness to the events, a fourth footballer who was in the home when the events happened, was hardly affected.The lawyer has not wanted to rule yet on whether to appeal this new sentence before the Supreme Court, postponing this decision until the new sentence is studied in depth.In this sense, in addition, he has indicated that the terms, due to the special circumstances that are caused by the isolation by COVID-19, are not so rigid, so they will have more time to think about it.