At least 345 magistrates from all over the country have already handed down sentence reductions to sexual offenders in application of the Law of Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, known as the
law of only yes is yes
, according to the data collected by EL PAÍS through the nearly 200 resolutions to which it has had access and the information provided by the press offices of the regional TSJ (Superior Courts of Justice).
Since the entry into force of the rule on October 7, more than half a thousand criminals have benefited from it, which has caused an intense crisis in the coalition government.
While the PSOE talks about "unwanted effects" and urges a counter-reform to be carried out, the Ministry of Equality and Podemos insist on attacking a "minority of judges" who apply the new legislation "badly".
More information
How long will there be reductions in sentences?
The unknown dimension of the hole of the 'law of only yes is yes'
Not all the courts in the country have made their data public, but the available ones allow us to outline the phenomenon that has been going on for four months.
EL PAÍS has compiled in a list the names of all the judges who sign the sentence reductions to which it has had access: there are 264 different magistrates (15 from the Supreme Court; 37 from the TSJ; and 212 from 58 sections of the Provincial Courts ).
To this figure we must add at least another 81 judges from another 27 criminal sections of the Hearings, where there have also been reductions in sentences in a collegiate manner (each decision is signed by three members of the court), but who have not disseminated the results. cars where they agree, as reported by the TSJ.
Although there is a lack of other members of courts that do not provide information (some of which are large, such as the Court of Barcelona), the number of 345 judges represents an important part of the career: 52% of the 654 existing positions to deal with criminal matters —16 in the Supreme Court, 76 in the superior courts and 562 in the provincial courts, according to data from the templates prepared by the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ).
In addition, the magistrates who have issued reductions are not concentrated in one part of the territory, but are distributed throughout the country: in all communities there have already been reductions in sentences;
and in 44 of the 50 provincial courts.
Also, 15 of the 16 Supreme Court magistrates, both progressive and conservative, have signed sentence reductions in application of the
law of only yes is yes
.
Podemos has defended at all times that the
law of
only yes is yes
"is well done" and rules out assuming responsibilities, despite the fact that Irene Montero, Minister of Equality, rejected on November 2 that there would be reductions in sentences.
“There is still not a single sentence reduction known.
And it will not be known.
It is macho propaganda, ”she said that day.
But in the middle of that month a trickle of sales began that continues with no sign of stopping.
Such a situation has modulated the story of the leftist party, which began to charge against the judicial career.
In an interview in EL PAÍS, Pablo Echenique, spokesman for the political force in Congress, repeated a week ago: "Unfortunately, there are still judges in Spain who do not understand feminist advances and are even capable of misapplying a law, and there are We have to work so that this stops happening, because it is very serious [...] We cannot control the hand of a judge who passes sentence”.
Montero insisted on the same thesis last Wednesday in the plenary session of the Lower House: “The majority of judges in this country are applying the law well.
Only a minority of judges are making decisions contrary to the law and transitory law, and lowering sentences for sexual offenders.
What cannot be said is that the law is good for the majority that applies it well, and bad for the minority that applies it badly”.
Discomfort among the judges
The words of Podemos generate enormous discomfort in the race.
Three of the four judicial associations have called for the resignation of the minister: the APM (Professional Association of the Magistracy), the AJFV (Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association) and the FJI (Independent Judicial Forum).
“It is a totally reprehensible action, false and unfair, resorting to widespread disqualifications;
instead of honestly assuming the possibility that the rule may give rise to interpretations that can be resolved in favor of the prisoner, due to the imperative of the basic criminal principles”, stated the majority APM.
FJI adds: "It is unacceptable to affirm that some judges are making decisions 'contrary to the Law', transferring to the judicial career the responsibility for the consequences of its application."
Representatives of all currents of the race (both progressive and conservative) repeat that the reform is simply being applied.
“There is no doubt that the positive legislator, on the occasion of the reform, has decided to underestimate the criminal reproach of the crime of rape —carnal access with introduction, integrating abuse and sexual assault into a single criminal offense—, since it has now established a sentence that ranges from 4 to 12 years in prison, while in the repealed regulation the duration of the sentence extended from 6 to 12 years", stated three magistrates of the Balearic High Court two weeks ago, when rejecting the appeal presented by the Prosecutor's Office against a sentence reduction issued by the Provincial Court.
Ignacio González Vega, one of the magistrates who has applied sentence reductions and a former spokesperson for the progressive Judges and Judges for Democracy, has pronounced himself in this regard: “By accepting everything under the same legal classification of aggression, a greater punitive arc is produced and this has produced that there are conducts that are less penalized than before”.
"We value the specific case"
Luis Ortiz, magistrate of the Court of Asturias and member of the Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association (AJFV), explains how the courts are approaching the review of sentences: "We value the specific case and whether the new regulation is more favorable to the prisoner.
The general rule is that the norm in force at the time of committing the act is applied to the defendant, but there is an exception: the case that the new one is more favourable”.
“There are assumptions that are very clear, but in others it is not so clear.
This is not mathematics”, says Ortiz, who adds: “That there are some interpretative discrepancies falls within the normal functioning of justice, which has a system of appeals for possible review by higher courts”.
His colleague Verónica Ponte García, a magistrate of first instance and investigation in Getxo (Bizkaia), agrees: “The people who make up the judicial career, with access to the case and its vicissitudes, must provide a solution to the requests for review.
To do this, they study which is the applicable rule in the specific case and assess whether the review is appropriate in the event that they understand that it is more favorable for the prisoner.
For this reason, there may be resolutions that reduce the sentence and other cases in which this is not the case.
It is about the judicial function”.
The Supreme Court already set the criteria at the end of November, when it analyzed the
Arandina case
— about the former players of the La Arandina soccer club prosecuted for forcing a teenager — and imposed nine years in prison on two defendants.
Then, the high court indicated that the agreed sentence was less than the one that would have corresponded to them before the modification of the norm.
In this way, and although they urged to analyze each specific case, the magistrates endorsed reducing the sentences when the
law of only yes is yes is
more favorable and confirmed the existence of the hole created by the new legislation.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber
