The law of only yes is yes has started off on the wrong foot. Since its entry into force, there are already four hundred sentences that have been revised downwards, although the judges’ body estimates that the real figure may be much higher because data is missing. Many courts are not in favor of publicizing the reviews that are being made for the crimes of sexual abuse and assault, so it will take time to know the real impact that the modification of the sentences has had. To illustrate, the Supreme Court has reviewed 14 sentences, of which in eight the sentences have been maintained and in six they have been reduced, which means 40% reduced sentences.
However, not all discounts are homogeneous. There are some in which the new rule has only led to a reduction in the sentence of a few months. In most cases the reductions are one or two years of the total sentence but, nevertheless, in other cases the reductions have been substantial, even going down to half the sentence, thus accelerating releases.
Within the complexity of the matter, the explanation can be summarized simply. If a convicted person had the lowest penalty set for the crime, and with the new regulation that lower penalty has been reduced, it automatically has to be lowered. And the same goes for the upper forks. A prisoner cannot be sentenced for a sentence that has been reduced. If either of these two circumstances occur, the judges are obliged to review the sentence.
All of these reviews that are being released are from people who have already been tried and convicted. If the new law benefits them, it is mandatory to apply it. The general feeling that exists in the judicial career is that the reform of sentences for crimes of sexual assault is favoring those convicted. However, there are also jurists who defend that it is a good law, that it gives greater protection to the victims and that the reductions in many cases are not being substantial, but rather an instrument of political confrontation.
The two things are not incompatible. Sources from the Observatory against Domestic and Gender Violence of the CGPJ maintain that the law of Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom is a great step for the protection of the victim when considering their testimony as preconstituted evidence, which frees them from going through the ordeal of testify several times, advance in the protected witnesses, establish the concept of consent and withdraw the crime of abuse and become assault.
There is considerable unanimity in the sector when a reform of the current text is called for to make the penalties more specific. One of the leading experts in this type of matter in the High Court maintains that it would be a good option to recover the previous sentences as long as the obligation of having to prove the violence, intimidation or annulment of the victim to justify the severity is not returned. of the crime The Ministry of Justice is already working on this reform without the support of the Ministry of Equality, a great promoter of the law. The objective is that for the attacks that are committed from now on there are not significantly lower penalties than those that were imposed until the approval of the law. Ministerial sources acknowledge that these crimes are very sensitive and once justice was already being very harsh with the aggressors, there may be a relaxation in the sentences. The case of the footballer Dani Alves is an example. Legal sources explain that the athlete, who is in pretrial detention for allegedly raping a girl in a nightclub, could be sentenced to four years in prison if he acknowledged the facts and apologized to the victim, a sentence significantly lower than that given. would impose before the law.
The origin of the law promoted by the Minister of Equality, Irene Montero, originated from the rape of a young woman by La Manada during the Sanfermines (Pamplona) in 2016. A court initially sentenced the five perpetrators of abuse and not of sexual assault . It was not until the case reached the Supreme Court that the judges ruled that this was a rape and that the victim did not offer resistance was not an obstacle to demonstrating that there was a “marked superiority” over her. This case generated a great social alarm and was the motor of the norm. And now, the damned can benefit from it. According to legal sources, the Provincial Court of Navarra plans to review the fifteen-year sentence established by the Supreme Court in the coming days. Four of the five convicted are carrying another sentence, so this reduction would not have a practical effect. In reality, if the penalty is reduced, the impact will be more symbolic than real.
On December 14, 2022, the Supreme Court marked the path of how the law of only yes is yes should be applied. The conclusion was that the minimum penalties of the forks should be applied and reduced if necessary to those who had previously set it. Of ten years for which two former players had to be sentenced for assaulting a minor, the sentence was set at nine years. From 12 to 4 years for touching. The reviews are mixed and some convicts have benefited more than others. In this case, the Supreme Court has reduced from nine to four and a half years in prison the sentence of a man who touched the buttocks of four girls under 16 years of age and an older one while they were skating at the Christmas ice rink in Vitoria on December 22, 2019. The reduction could imply the imminent release of the abuser. This is one of the cases in which the debate is opened as to whether the penalty with the previous law was not excessive.
The bloodiest reductions with the new law of only yes is yes are those that have to do with sexual assaults on minors. An example is the review by the Provincial Court of Castellón of the sentence imposed on the perpetrator of a sexual assault on a minor under 17 years of age in 2020 and for which he was sentenced to six years in prison. In his case, the minimum penalty was applied because he acknowledged the facts and there was reparation for the damage with prior compensation. With the new law, the court reduced the sentence to three and a half years “being respectful of the powers of individualization then exposed in the conviction.” Another case that has generated social alarm is the release of a sexual predator in Lleida after the reduction from 15 to 9 and a half years.
Among the reviews that have been carried out in recent months, the courts are also upholding sentences in very serious cases. Sources from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) explain that it cannot be forgotten that it is the same judges who imposed the sentences who are being forced to review them. Those judges who from Equality have now been branded as “sexist” are the same ones who imposed the original sentences. What these sources want to explain is that the magistrates themselves have no choice but to review some sentences even if they try to maintain the sentences previously imposed. The same court that has to review the case of La Manada of the Audiencia de Navarra has rejected the review of an eight-year prison sentence imposed for a violation, considering that the sentence also fits in accordance with the new legal regulation. Likewise, the Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence of 15 years in prison imposed on a father for a crime of continuous sexual assault, with intimidation, on his son in Galicia since he was 12 years old. And then there are multiple cases of sentences reviewed in just a few months but that have generated alarm because they have led to early releases.
