History of Criminal Law

“Each society, historically, has created, and creates, its own criminal norms, with characteristic
features and elements according to the legal right that it wishes to protect in each case.”

To explain the origin of criminal law, it must be sought in primitive society, and to explain its
progress, we follow the trajectory of four periods pointed out by José Mendoza Troconis:

 The Criminal Law of Totemic Clans.

 The Criminal Law of the city of antiquity.
 Criminal Law of theocracies and governments of the ruling classes and despots.
 Criminal Law in the Modern Age and Liberal Criminal Law.

1.- The Criminal Law of the totemic clans

Mendoza Troconis explains that the primitive group that is found at the beginning of almost all
societies is the clan, and defines it as: "a group of relatives or individuals who have the same
mystical origin, an ancestor who gives name to the group and is called a totem."

Durkheim, for his part, defines the clan as "the legal society of relatives linked together by the
community of name and worship and by the reciprocity of rights and duties." (Quote from
Benson, Totemism, p. 94).

However, and in contrast to the authors cited, Miguel Pérez states that "the totem and the
taboo are inspirations whose true meaning we cannot understand today." (Criminal Law,
General Principles, p. 62, 1963).

In short, in these primitive groups the solidarity of link resided in totemic religious beliefs, so
that, in these first social forms, totemism appears as a regulatory factor.

Derived from totemism, the first prohibitions in the group arose, called taboo; which, in
accordance with the work "Criminology" by Maurice Parmelee, p. 19; (1925) are:

Sacrilege: The totem was an animated being, most often an animal; the members of the clan
considered this animal sacred, they believed that they had something of the animal within
themselves. A member of the hare clan had to abstain from eating hare meat and the violation
of this prohibition constituted a taboo, which was sanctioned by the community, because it
offended a religious feeling common to the members.

Incest: Individuals from the same group considered each other brothers. The woman
transmitted the totem to her children; in the group, the woman's blood, the vehicle of the
totem, was sacred; periodically, the woman lost part of this blood, which exposed her to the
dangers of contact; therefore, sexual contact between members of the clan and a woman of
the same clan was absolutely forbidden, a taboo rule that came to constitute exogamy or
prohibition of incest, so serious that its violation was punishable by death.

Witchcraft: Primitive people were essentially animistic, they ignored the origin of natural
phenomena and believed that all were animated by beneficial or malevolent spiritual entities.
Thus the spirits that encouraged rain and soil fertility or contributed to the destruction of the
enemy were good, but those that exhausted the crops or attracted the enemy were bad.

There were individuals in the group called magicians or witches, who had the virtue of forcing
spiritual beings to do the will of man; when the magician benefited the group with his
practices, he deserved reward and superstitious respect, but if he used his power against the
clan, then he insulted its members and his attitude was punished as witchcraft.

Treason: The primitive life of the clans was a continuous war against other groups, and the
warrior who refused to fight or instigated or helped the enemy, threatened the security and
permanence of the community, and was punished for treason.

Hunting crimes: Finally, in those remote times, hunting was the ordinary way of obtaining
food, it was regulated as a factor of life in the group, and violations of the hunting rules
constituted attacks against the community.

These acts were "equivalent to crimes" because these groups did not have a real concept of
crime: rather, the act of causing harm was punished.

Indeed, violent deaths were common, due to religious rites, revenge, cannibalism, uselessness,
warlike feats; infanticide went unpunished, because the killer had the right to dispose of the
product of his blood; theft was considered a display of skill and dexterity; sexual acts of
seduction and rape were not punished: the woman belonged to the community and the most
frequent sexual union consisted of the theft of women.

Given the above conditions, a question arises: Does this mean that damage caused to
people and property went unpunished?
Private Revenge: In response to the above statement, the offended person took revenge by his
own hand, and all members of the clan considered themselves offended, because among them
there was a feeling of common obligations and responsibility, each one was responsible in the
group for the acts of others, and each one was willing to avenge the offense inflicted on
another, as if it were done to him. This was the first reaction against acts equivalent to crimes:
blood revenge. Private revenge was always exaggerated, causing greater harm than that
suffered by the avenger (the principle of proportionality did not exist), revenge was linked,
entire clans lived in perpetual war over the murders committed against their members.

Based on the above considerations, Isidro de Miguel Pérez argues: "The tribe demands the
elimination of whoever has committed a crime within it; if the criminal belongs to another
tribe, blood vengeance ensues and with it war between the two tribes which generally ends
with the disappearance of one of them."

2. The Criminal Law of the city of antiquity

The clans were originally nomadic, however, at a more advanced stage the clans became
sedentary due to the influence of agriculture. Groups of clans occupy a certain portion of
territory and form towns and villages. Groups that go beyond the clan stage are situated in
fractions of territory, real districts, councils or brands. The territorial constituency became
increasingly extensive, local groups came together in another, broader form of society, called a
tribe, and the tribe became structured with an individualized higher power. Thus, the society
formed by clans or families constitutes a city, like the cities of Greece and Rome, and the right
to punish becomes public, in the sense that it is exercised by the head of the city or by the
magistrate.

The laws of cities

The enumeration of these prohibitions or acts "equivalent to crimes" that were harmful to the
lives of these groups, continued, in the cities, with the invention of writing, the "catalogue of
crimes", contained in written laws, which in early Rome formed a body called Leyes duodecim
tabula rum: Law of the Twelve Tables.

In almost all ancient cities, rough laws were drawn up containing interesting penal rules, and
today the Code of Hanmurabi in Assyria; the Pentateuch among the Hebrews; the Code of the
Five Penalties in China; the Laws of Minos in Greece; and the Laws of Draco, Solon and
Lycurgus in Greece attract attention.

Classification of crimes
In most of these laws, two types of crimes appear: some are public, which offend the
community and are punished with public penalties; others are private, which offend people
and property, and were sanctioned by the offended party's own hand.

Public crimes
The laws of the Twelve Tables established, as public crimes:

The perduellis or treason: it was any attack against the city, bad war, instigation of the enemy.

Parricidium or the death of a fellow human being.

Alongside these main acts, they placed other common crimes such as theft, magic spells used
to destroy crops, defamatory libels and public insults, burning down a building, defrauding a
client by an employer, refusal to testify as a witness, false testimony, and seditious groups at
night and in the city. The penalties imposed for these crimes were retaliatory or already had
severity or cruelty: death, torture, sacrifice to the gods, being thrown from the Tarpeian Rock
and fire.

Private crimes

The punishment was of a private nature, and took the form of a ransom or financial settlement
that extinguished the criminal action by a simple agreement. Thus, against the one who broke
a limb and did not compromise, the penalty of retaliation; for the fracture of a bone and a
tooth of a free man, 300 ases; of a slave, 50 ases; for injury to another, 25 ases; for damage
caused unjustly, reparation; for theft, four times the value stolen. These private crimes could
be classified as theft, robbery, damage to another's property and personal injury.

It is evident then, that in the reaction against private crimes there are two essential limitations
to private revenge:

Talium or talion: it was only permitted to inflict on the guilty party an evil equal to that which
he had caused.

Thus, the Mosaic laws said:

"But if a fatal accident occurs, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
hand for hand, foot for foot, brand for brand, wound for wound, blow for blow; and if a man
injures the eye of his male or female slave and actually ruins him, he must send him away as a
freed person in compensation for his eye." (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures,
Exodus, Chap. 20, verses 23 – 25).

In the Law of the Twelve Tables this type of talionary precepts were also established.

- Compositio or talionary compensation: obligation for the offended party to receive a

monetary price for the offense, which was considered as the ransom of blood. In many laws,
the offended party could choose between revenge or contention and composition, but the
political authority, acquiring increasing power, managed to establish mandatory composition,
to prevent groups from weakening due to the multiplication of revenge.

With reference to the above, R. Shom summarized the evolution of penal legislation in Rome
in this way:

When the Roman Republic was founded, the people demanded for themselves the
punishment of criminals who deserved the death penalty. The trial was then made public,
crimes were created by special laws, which also determined the penalty and were judged by
juries, they were called Crimina legitima, and the laws that instituted them, Quaestiones.
(Institutions of Roman Private Law, p. 417).

3. The Criminal Law of theocracies, classes and despots

Whether in Egypt or in the empires of the ancient East, in Greece and Rome, during feudalism
and in the European monarchies and empires, or when the Popes exercised temporal power
and the sovereigns called themselves representatives of the gods on earth and governed in the
name of divinity, and there were victorious and dominant classes that oppressed the
subjugated ones, in all these structures of social groups, based on theocratic, despotic and
tyrannical governments, criminal law was an instrument of revenge of the majesties and
divinities.

The laese magestatis crimen was established, which included everything from the most trivial
acts, such as breaking the statues of kings, disrespectful words, irreverence, dreams, simple
carelessness in the domestic service of the leaders and even thoughts, to the most serious
acts, such as treason, rebellions, conspiracies, attacks on princes, the royal family and officials
and the privileges reserved for emperors. Thus, counterfeiting currency was a crime of lèse-
majesté because it usurped the prerogative of manufacturing it, which was exclusive to the
monarch; so was embezzlement, because it was carried out on the royal treasury.

During ecclesiastical domination

Blasphemy, atheism, heresy, sacrilege, magic, demonism, sorcery and any acts that denigrated
mystical beliefs were established as crimes, and entire races and communities were
considered criminals, such as Jews, Moors and heretics in old Spain.

Divine Vengeance
It was terrible and cruel; in ancient times, priests demanded sacrifices of women and children,
suicides, mutilations and religious prostitution to attenuate the anger of the gods. Crimes
against religion were punished with death and torture invented by the Inquisition.

Political revenge

The absolute leaders of the various regimes have considered their subjects as things subject to
their whims and interests. They have used as punishment for crimes all the tortures that
human cruelty has invented as expiatory measures: cutting off the tongue, hands and feet of
the condemned; throwing them into a bonfire; strangling, decapitating, crucifying, quartering
and tearing the body in two halves; throwing criminals from the top of a rock; crushing them
under loaded carts; roasting them and boiling them in cauldrons of oil; killing them with the
slow and painful deaths of the Chinese tortures; walling them up, letting them die of
putrefaction; exposing them alive to the prey of birds; burying them up to their necks and
letting them perish from hunger and the heat of the sun; stoning them; burying them alive;
rolling them up; ordering them to commit suicide; handing them over to the wild beasts of the
circus; marking them with infamous signs.

All these punishments fit into the dominant framework of penality created by religious,
despotic and class-based penal legislation.

The Ancient Age: China, Egypt, Israel, Persia, India, Assyria,

Greece, Rome
In these primitive States, the most varied penal legislation dominated, depending on the
regions, times, politics, religions and economy, that is, according to the peculiar social life of
each people, because the Penal Law has a social character, it accompanies the transformations
of social life.

The sign of these primitive laws is the erection of acts against the sovereign and against God as
crimes and their atrocious and cruel punishment. The acts against the individual were
sanctioned by him or by the clan group.

1. Criminal Law in the Ancient East

1.1. Chinese Criminal Law

It is classified into two major periods:

First period

During the first there was the Law of the Five Penalties, which were:

For homicide: death by decapitation, hanging, dismemberment or burial alive.

For theft and injuries: amputation of one or both feet.

For statutory rape: castration.

Scam: nose mutilation.

For so-called "minor" crimes: one mark.

The death penalty was carried out publicly, to serve as an example, and mutilations were
carried out so that others would realise the criminal nature of the mutilated; therefore, the
basis of the right to punish was intimidation.

Second period

It is interesting that at this time five types of involuntary offences were admitted that
exempted them from punishment, the motives for crimes were studied, those who informed
on conspiracies were favoured and it was ordered that those punished be looked after after
the execution of the sentence.

The involuntary fouls were:

1. because one is afraid of a powerful man.

2. because one wants to take revenge or return a favor.

3. being pressured by women's speeches.

4. for being fond of money.

5. for having heard flattering promises.

Persian Criminal Law

In Persian criminal law, two historical periods were also distinguished: the remote one and the
one that extends until the reception of Islam.

First period

Justice was administered based on revenge for crimes and the equity of retaliation.

Second era

The crime was considered an attack on the authority of the sovereign, and it was the sovereign
himself who judged, irritated by revenge. This explains why the punishments of ancient
Persian criminal law enjoyed the greatest reputation for cruelty. Punishments included death
by stoning, crucifixion, dismemberment and decapitation. Also bodily mutilations.

In Persia, a further step was taken: over time, royal vengeance was attenuated and the
penalties were transformed into prison and fines. Mutilations were dispensed with for
utilitarian purposes: so as not to deprive men of work.

Egyptian criminal law

The ancient Egyptian laws are attributed to the revelation of them made by the god Hermes to
King Mnevis; they were, therefore, divine laws, and religious crimes were violations of the holy
laws, such as the crime of harming the sanctity of the divinity, the death of sacred animals
(Apis ox and crocodiles), or the death of animals considered sacred, such as the ibis, the cat
and the falcon.

Attacks against the pharaohs, complicity in these attacks, disobedience of royal orders,
offenses against the pharaoh and his family, harm and homicide were considered crimes
against divinity. Symbolic talion was applied: the tongue of a spy was cut out; the genitals of a
rapist; and the nose of an adulterous woman. Theft was not punishable; there were legal
societies of thieves. Punishments for other crimes included public and mining work and
slavery.

Hebrew Criminal Law

The Hebrew people were governed by the laws that Moses brought from the mountain,
revealed by God and compiled in the five books of the Pentateuch; the crimes were contained
in these sacred books and the main ones were religious facts. Punishment was based on
retaliation, atonement and intimidation.

With reference to the above, Tulio Chiossone highlights: "in Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy
is where most of the penal precepts are found" (Annotations, I, p. 20).

Indian Criminal Law

These laws were contained in the Code of Manu, which consolidated the penal precepts in a
chapter devoted to penances and expiations, with a particular characteristic: the division of
castes. Crimes against the Brahmin were very serious and were punished with banishment to
the forests and isolation on the roads or serving cows for months.

Assyrian criminal law

In this regard, Buratti comments:
One of the oldest and most advanced laws is the Code of Hammurabi, which dates back to
2,000 BC. The most interesting thing about this compilation is its liberation from religious
principles. It distinguishes acts carried out voluntarily from those carried out through
imprudence (significant progress), removes any idea of revenge in punishment, and subjects
the latter to talion, recalling precepts such as these: "the son of the one who kills, even if it is
unintentional, will be killed", "if one pokes out another's eye, he loses his own", "if someone
breaks another's bone, let him break his own", etc. (The Laws of Hammurabi, p. 190).

Criminal Law in Greece

Hellenic civilization was distinguished by the originality of its philosophy; therefore, the Greeks
studied principles relating to crime and punishment. The crime was considered, from an
ethical-political point of view, as an offense to the State, which required the application of a
remedy or panacea.

-Socrates: divided laws into divine and human and considered crime as the violation of a
natural law.

-Plato: he upheld the moral principle of the amendment of the criminal and considered
punishment as a medicine for the soul, which served both to prevent the repetition
(recidivism) of the crime by the author and its commission by others, thus, criminals who
demonstrated an incurable soul illness should be punished with death.

-Aristotle: He maintained that punishment was a remedy, but not to play the role of medicine,
except for the purposes of prevention; that the main purpose of punishment was the defense
of society; that punishment was just because it was necessary and should be greater
depending on the crime committed, the perversity of the offender or the circumstances.

Ferri points out that "the penal laws of Greece reproduced from primitive and legendary law
the institutes of revenge that were carried out despite the fact that the idea of the crime was
imposed by fate." (The Criminal Law of Ancient Greece, 1855).

Roman Criminal Law

Mendoza Troconis divides his study into three aspects:

a) Philosophy: almost all Roman philosophers established the principle that all crimes were
equal and that each individual had the right to mistreat his own body and commit suicide.

-Cicero: he studied punishment in relation to the utility of the State, any punishment should be
applied to the crime, so that each person suffered his own crime.

-Seneca: based the right to punish on intimidation, correction and elimination.

-Pellegrino: He argued that punishment did not serve to eliminate crime, because abstaining
from committing it was a moral issue for the individual; the person who could not abstain from
committing it demonstrated a propensity to crime.

b) The Law: The Law of the Twelve Tables indicated a significant number of crimes on which
private revenge could be exercised, limited by talion or pecuniary compositions. These crimes
were private, unlike public ones, whose punishment was reserved for the State.

c) Jurisprudence: it has its origin in the legal schools that emerged in Rome, the Institutes of
Gaius, the Quaestiones of Papinian; the Disputations of Ulpian and the sentences of Paulus.
The Middle Ages. Canonical and Germanic Criminal Law
It is worth noting that Roman law, after the fall of the Empire, remained in the greatest
darkness and confusion due to the loss of the manuscripts containing the codifications of the
Emperor Justinian; but, once these were found, the renaissance of law took place, which
flourished again with the annotations and commentaries of the jurists called glossators.

The Practitioners (called post-glossators) systematized the criminal law annotated or glossed
by previous jurists. They reacted against them in the sense that the glossators commented
disjointedly on the passages of the Roman manuscripts, while the practitioners used scholastic
dialectics in the interpretation of those texts in order to try to apply its principles to practical
cases. A new law was formed, composed of general rules related to jurisprudence, which were
the basis of the articles of modern penal codes. They can be considered as preparers of the
dogmatic system of criminal law.

1. Canon Penal Law

The influence of Christianity during the Middle Ages formed an important source of criminal
law, because almost all justice was dominated by the religious idea. Attacks against the dogma,
persons and things of the Church constituted the main crimes of that time and all the laws
were inspired by the priestly and religious spirit.

But the canonists established many principles that still govern criminal matters as fundamental
classical criteria. The theological school established the foundations of free will; Christianity
humanized punishments; in the system of penalties, the principle of individualization of
punishment was accepted.

Isidro de Miguel Pérez highlights the importance of Canonical Penal Law:

"The Criminal Law of the Church is of extraordinary relevance:

First: It embodies the Roman legal norm in the social life of the West.

Second: He softened and civilized the brutal Germanic practice.

Third: It included the subjective element. He paid attention to the animus whenever there
were external facts.

Fourth: The attempt was punishable."

2. Germanic Criminal Law

In early times there was divine vengeance and blood vengeance. After the barbarian invasion,
the power of the State increased, the blood vengeance that previously extended to the family
was limited, and composition was accepted. The punishment, at first, had only the character of
revenge and gradually became intimidating. The conception of crime is objective. The focus is
not on guilt, but on the harmful result. There does not seem to be any attempt.

For the Germans, the main element in a crime is the damage caused and not the intention to
cause said damage. Germanic Criminal Law is based on the premise that "whoever breaks the
peace places himself outside the peace", generating a war between the wrongdoer and his
victim, or simply, it translates into a war between the Sippes of those involved.

4.- Criminal Law in the Modern Age and Liberal Criminal Law

After long evolutions, the power of the State manages to end the wars between families. The
State, then, has full possession of the right to punish. The penalties are distressing,
intimidating and exemplary. Thus begins the subjective right of the State to punish. Many
centuries after the proclamation of Public Criminal Law, the punishment continues to be a very
harsh atonement for the crime. European nations have been acting this way for a long time.
The Church is entering a humanitarian era and there are many illustrious voices, especially in
Spain, protesting against the death penalty and torture. The stage is thus set for Philosophy
and Liberal Criminal Law.

In 1974, Beccaria published a book, "On Crimes and Punishments," combating the excesses of
justice and arguing that punishments should be proportional to the gravity of the crimes; that
these should be determined with certainty; that the criminal should be punished without
cruelty, only in order to prevent him from committing new crimes. Beccaria's doctrine was a
revolution in criminal law.

History of Peruvian Criminal Law

Inca Period
Although it is true, one cannot speak of institutions of a legal nature, one can
speak of the Inca Empire through the reports of chroniclers and historians that
allow us to affirm that procedural norms existed in the Incanate, both in criminal,
civil and administrative matters, these norms of law were as strictly called as the
"Inca" Garcilazo De La Vega says.
"These laws were to be observed point by point, the severity of the penalties
were in relation to their warrior spirit which forced them to have a rigid
discipline, even reaching the point of applying the death penalty, as well as the
prison or preventive penalty called Sancay, economic or pecuniary penalties."

According to Poma de Alaya, justice was not applied equally in one era for the
nobility and another for the people. For the nobility, they were punishments of
disgrace, ignominy or reprobation, which were more humiliating than the death
penalty itself, which was applied to the people. When a native stole or killed, he
was brought before the chief of the ayllu and in his presence the witnesses
were questioned. If they did not give sufficient reason, the chieftains were
ordered to report and if these reports or news indicated that he was an idle
subject of bad living or bad habits, he was subjected to torture until he
confessed and was sentenced according to the crime, even applying the death
penalty if applicable. These versions are obtained from the chroniclers Colo and
Santillán in their work: "Stories of the Incas and Relationship in their
Government."

In itself we can summarize that the criminal justice of the Incas was ex officio as
well as the intervention of the people in charge of prosecuting the crime.
Those who were ready to punish, acquire, infringement of the established law
acting in the name of the Inca and the social order and through the process the
punitive power of the state was fulfilled.
From what was stated by the chroniclers we came to establish that the process
existed and the offender was subjected to it and this process was oral and
public. There was to be no codification and the rules were established as
principles. The accused was obliged to appear and be confronted with the
people who in some way knew about the crime and in that same act or hearing
the testimonial declaration was received after the magical test; women could not
be witnesses because they were considered liars, nor could the poor because
they were considered bribable.
The procedural acts were true ordeals or trials of God; thus, the accused were
locked up full of vicious and harmful animals to prove their innocence, where
they remained incommunicado, according to Huanca Poma de Alaya and Siesa
de León.
If his guilt was not proven, he was released and if he was found guilty, the
punishment corresponding to the crime was applied and a repeat offender was
punished with death.
Once the sentence was handed down, it was immediately executed because
there was no appeal except for the nobility; the sentences were carried out in
prisons called Sancay or Pinas Huasi and those in charge of carrying out the
sentences were the curacas.

The chronicler De las Casas says that the village chiefs paid special attention to
ensure that no one harmed their neighbours or proceeded against those who
were unjustly punished, severely punishing the theft of women, rape and
adultery.
There was a hierarchy in the administration of justice, the Inca was advised by
the Atucuna or supreme council that had judicial functions.

The Holders of Jurisdiction in the Incanate

It was the Inca, the Chunga Camalloc, the Pacho Camalloc, the Huaranga
Camalloc, the Michoc Camayc, the Royal Council.

Those who did not perform the specific function of Judge, in turn exercised
other political functions. The figure of the Judge in its current sense and function
was not known, just as they did not know the notaries, solicitors, or lawyers, but
they did know the bailiffs, jailers, executioners, and there was a secretary of the
royal council, a public notary, and a royal notary.
According to the chronicler Sieza de León, the Inca had the power to exercise
power and jurisdiction throughout the empire, the royal council over the four
regions of the empire, the Tucuyricoc (he who knows everything and sees
everything) in the provinces under his command. The process was free.

All this suggests that we are faced with a judicial and criminal procedural
organization of great scope and with principles that have informed procedural
law throughout the world, since many of its institutions are still found within
modern legislation. They were original laws and those of the empire that had
been forged under the designation of a thriving race with a high historical and
cultural concept that honors the Inca culture, its importance being such that
even the laws of Indian law of the first years of the colony had their information
front in the laws of the Incanate.
The laws that governed criminal law in the form of slogans and mandates were
wise ordinances of a people who had a high sense of legal order and
community life. For them, social order prevailed over individual order without
ignoring the fact that man, for reasons of constitution, was a human being and
had his rights legitimately established. They tried to form a society on solid
foundations of respect for the interests of others, where the bad life of men for
whom the death penalty was established was despised, and for forgers who did
not know how to have enough courage to recognize the bad action they had
committed, when observing the laws of the Incanate we have only to think of
wise procedural laws that indicate the authentic mentality of what the Inca
people attribute.

Criminal Procedure in the Colony

The entire territory subject to the power of Spain was made up of around twelve
judicial districts, which in turn were divided into corregimientos and mayoralties,
all of which were governed by the audiences and these were under the
dependence of the Council of the Indies based in Seville.

The main one was the Royal Court of Lima, which was presided over by the
Viceroy and made up of the governor and captain general, lieutenant of the
king, eight judges, four criminal mayors, a chief constable, and a lieutenant of
the chancellor; the Royal Court of Lima extended from Paita to Chile, and
Cuzco belonged in part to the Royal Court of La Plata until May 3, 1787, when
the Royal Court of Cuzco was established by royal decree.

The Royal Court itself performed a dual function, one jurisdictional and the other
political, thus in the executive power or with the viceroy the political and judicial
function which allowed the proliferation of the abuse of nepotism and the excess
of power.

The administration of justice in the Colony was truly a farce because justice
never existed for the people since in its name they were exploited, plundered,
expropriated and even deprived of life, in addition to the fact that the last
instance was the Court of Seville.