Military personnel who covered a violation were not punished “thanks to the Pope’s amnesty”

The army acknowledges that the military who did not denounce the colleague incurred a disciplinary offense, but the law of amnesty annulled the punishment.

The six military personnel who received videos from an army colleague violating a woman in 2022 and did not report the crime will not be the target of any disciplinary punishment. Although the institution recognizes that there was a disciplinary offense this is covered by the law of amnesty approved in 2023 in the context of the World Youth Day.

The case dates back to April 2022, when 27 -year -old cable Jorge L. violated a woman for about an hour and a half, filmed the abuses and shared the videos in private group of WhatsApp with colleagues from the troop and a friend. The aggression occurred at the victim’s house, under threat and physical violence. The woman had to be hospitalized and underwent surgery given the violence of the attack.

The military was initially sentenced, in October 2023, by the Guard Court, to a single penalty of seven years and six months in prison and the payment of compensation of 15 thousand euros to the victim. In March 2025, the Coimbra Court of Appeal reduced the penalty to seven years, maintaining compensation.

The army was only formal knowledge of the involvement that the other military covered the crime on March 27, 2025, when receiving the judgment of the relationship. In an answer sent to, the army acknowledges that “the military who received the videos will have incurred in the practice of disciplinary infractionbecause they did not communicate this fact superiorly, ”but adds that such an infringement“ is amnesty ”by Law No. 38-A/2023 of 2 August.

Among the recipients of the videos was also a hierarchical superior of Jorge L., who, according to witness in court, Nothing did nothing to report the crime. Currently, this military belongs to the GNR, but at the time of the facts he was chord-help in the army.

In the appeal filed, Jorge L. claimed that filming did not show the victim to explicitly refuse, and that his identity was hidden. However, Judge Judges refuted this version, stressing that the videos showed total submission of the victim, absence of visible consent and physical suffering.