Women Judges ask Irene Montero for "containment" and not to blame the judiciary for applying the law

They advocate not reforming the 'only yes is yes' law for now and giving the courts time to establish criteria before interpretations

MADRID, 17 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Association of Women Judges of Spain (AMJE) has asked the Executive to contain the statements made by the Minister for Equality, Irene Montero, against judges, and warns that they should not rush "blaming judges" for the reviews sentencing of sexual offenders after the entry into force of the Organic Law for the Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, known as the 'only yes is yes' law.

In a statement, collected by Europa Press, they warn that it was expected that there would be downward revisions of sentences with the modification of the Penal Code and that, in fact, "it is part of democratic normality."

For this reason, they insist on calling for calm in the face of the controversy raised by some judicial decisions and they convey to public opinion that "the reform of sexual crimes has filled the need to apply the gender perspective in a matter as sensitive as this ", giving society "a rational and modern system that focuses on the protection of the victim."

In the opinion of the AMJE, it is of the utmost importance that it be known that when any penal reform is produced that affects the description of the prohibited conducts and the applicable punishment, "it is to be expected that sentence reviews will take place when, in the specific case, it may be more favorable to the defendant than the previous regulation".

However, they warn that from this association they already stated that its purpose "should not be to worsen the maximum penalties, which were already very high" but to provide the State "with a regulation more in line with the current social reality that be structured "on the absence of consent and that, from there, establish punishments proportionate to the seriousness of the different conducts that violate sexual freedom."

On the other hand, they indicate that it is more appropriate to the current reality to establish a specific regulation -as is the case with the new law- when the victim is under 16 years of age because the absence of consent is presumed. They point out that it is not necessary to maintain a category when the victim is over 16 and under 18 years of age "because in these cases it is enough to apply aggravations such as the abuse by the aggressor of a situation of superiority."

Finally, from AMJE they invite the Executive to give the courts and tribunals time to resolve the cases raised and establish unitary application criteria in those aspects that may give rise to different interpretations, also in the case of reviews.

"It is important that we maintain confidence in the activity of our courts and let them carry out their work. It is not reasonable to urge the reform of a law that has not yet had a minimum practical journey," they assert.