The Barcelona hearing This Thursday he condemned the paparazzi Diego Arrabal and Gustavo González ten months in prison and a fine of 1,400 euros for trying to profit from the photos taken of the journalist and presenter Marilo Montero in topless in a private hotel space while vacationing in 2015 in Bora Bora, a South Pacific island in French Polynesia. The ruling also condemned the from the paparazzi a ten months suspension from the exercise of his activity related to the pressand has left possible compensation to the complainant in the hands of civil proceedings.
The Court has stressed that Mariló Montero – who requested for both six years in prison and one compensation of 265,000 euros– organized at that time his 2015 Easter holidays with the wish «almost obsessive» to search for a tourist destination. Mariló Montero wanted to enjoy a few days of rest in a situation of “true intimacy”, after the “tracking and harassment» that he had suffered on a recent trip to the Maldives.
For this reason, the journalist and presenter then turned to a travel agency to help her choose a destination away from journalists and photographers. For this reason, Mariló Montero thought of Bora Bora as a suitable destination, away from any journalistic harassment. For this, she decided to keep her fate a secret. She didn't even tell her family. Nor to her friends. She just told her companion when they were already at the airport.
The third section of the Barcelona Court has highlighted in the sentence that condemns Diego Arrabal and Gustavo González, who tried to distribute the images knowing that they violated the privacy of Mariló Montero. In this sense, they have been condemned for a crime of revealing secrets when trying to sell some photographs of the journalist in topless -which were never published-, when it was in a private space in your hotel during your South Pacific island vacationpreviously cited.
Montero and her friend stayed on March 29, 2015 in a hotel bungalow. They had access to a private beach for guests of this hotel. They were on the terrace facing the sea, convinced that they were in an area of intimacy typical of the place, which at that time was their temporary home. Thus, They were in pajamas, bikini and the journalist also in topless sunbathing.
The Court has recognized that it has not been possible to specify how the images were obtainedalthough due to the angle of view and sharpness it means that they had to be taken with a telephoto lens from a boat or from one of the bungalows in the same hotel complex, semi-submerged in the sea in front of the beach.
Although the court has highlighted having “well-founded suspicions» that the accused could have been the ones who commissioned the obtaining of the photographs -without being able to prove it-, it has been assumed that they did try to sell them, since they themselves have recognized it.
In this sense, the court has pointed out that “it cannot be denied” that both were aware of the illegality of obtaining the photographs and that they represented a “clear violation” of the right to privacy, since anyone who sees them can deduce that were obtained surreptitiously and affecting the privacy of both.
All the more so the defendants should be aware of this, the ruling reasons, since both are professionals who are dedicated to capturing and marketing images.and who therefore know the legal limits of their actions“, despite the fact that at trial they alleged that they believed that the images did not violate privacy because they were captured in what they considered to be a “public place” and it was a «public figure».