The Court of Cantabria reduces the sentence of another convicted of sexual assault by two years

At the time, the minimum sentence for his crime was applied, which was six years, but after the reform of the Criminal Code it is now four

SANTANDER, 16 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The First Section of the Provincial Court of Cantabria has reduced by two years the sentence imposed in February 2021 on a man for sexually assaulting another, with whom he shared a room in a Santander psychiatric center. Thus, there are already four aggressors who have seen their sentences reduced in this autonomous community by the so-called 'law of only yes is yes'.

In this case, the man was considered the perpetrator of a crime of sexual assault with the concurrence of an extenuating circumstance for mental alteration and he was sentenced to six years in prison, which, with the review now carried out, is now four. Likewise, the court disqualifies him from practicing a profession or trade that involves contact with minors for a period of six years.

This is reflected in an order released this Friday -which is not firm, since it is possible to file an appeal before the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cantabria-, in which the Court reviews the penalty of prison that he imposed less than two years ago in response to the request made by the legal representation of the convicted person, who alleged the recent reform of the Criminal Code and the constitutional principle of retroactivity of the criminal law that is most favorable to the prisoner.

The facts proven in the sentence relate how the man, who shared a room with the victim in a psychiatric center, "with an obvious desire to satisfy his sexual desire, told him that if he didn't let him 'fuck him in the ass' he was going to give him a beating".

"Given the fear aroused by the threats, the other man acceded to the wishes of the convicted person, who penetrated him anally," says the sentence, which adds that later "he told him that if he didn't suck him he was going to hit him, for which the victim agreed.

The court explains in its resolution that the man who is now requesting the review of the sentence was convicted of committing a crime of sexual assault.

The sentence imposed, as reflected in the sentence itself, was then "the minimum provided by law, without this court considering that there is any reason -before the application of an attenuating circumstance- to set a higher penalty."

With the legislation of that time, the penalty range ranged from six to twelve years in prison and the court applied the minimum. Now, for said conduct, the prison sentence ranges from four to twelve years. For this reason, "following the criteria of the sentence handed down by this chamber to apply the minimum sentence provided for in the law, it would be appropriate to sanction the conduct with a sentence of four years in prison."

Among the reasons given by the court for carrying out the review is the fact that the six-year sentence, which was then the minimum, now "is not the minimum, but rather would be at the intermediate point of the lower half of the sorrow".

Along with this, the magistrates point out that now analyzing the specific circumstances of the case, that is, "if it is now possible to consider any element that justifies the maintenance of the previous sentence", "it would mean retrialing the case and doing it against the prisoner".

On the other hand, alluding to the transitory provision of the Penal Code of 1995 on the revision of sentences contained therein, the court understands that it is a specific provision of that law and that it referred to "possible sentence revisions that were to be produced in 1995".

"It is not considered that these criteria are applicable to a law approved twenty-seven years after that," says the order, which recalls that other organic laws that have modified the Penal Code have contained a similar transitory provision.

Finally, the Provincial Court of Cantabria understands that the 'in dubio pro reo' principle must be applied. "As a subsidiary criterion, if we came to the conclusion that we are dealing with two equally valid interpretations of the law", referring to the one made by the court and the one applying the transitory provision of 1995, "we should opt for the interpretation that is most favorable to the convict".