Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured Reino Unido Marruecos VOX Comisión Europea ANC

The Prosecutor's Office asks the Constitutional Court to annul a reduction for a sexual offender because the gender perspective was not applied

He reproaches that the Court of Seville lowered the sentence from 7 years and 9 months to 2 years and 8 months.

- 1 reads.

The Prosecutor's Office asks the Constitutional Court to annul a reduction for a sexual offender because the gender perspective was not applied

He reproaches that the Court of Seville lowered the sentence from 7 years and 9 months to 2 years and 8 months

MADRID, 25 Nov. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Prosecutor's Office before the Constitutional Court (TC) has presented a report in which it has requested that a sentence of the Provincial Court of Seville that reduced a sentence of a sexual offender be annulled, considering that the gender perspective was not applied and that minimized "the psychological damage actually suffered by the victim-woman".

The prosecutor has responded to the plaintiff's request and has confirmed the need to consider the procedure from said gender perspective. Thus, he has recognized the claimant's right to effective judicial protection in its modality of the right to obtain a decision duly founded on Law, in relation to the right to equality and non-discrimination.

In a note, collected by Europa Press, the Prosecutor's Office has specified that the case corresponds to the Criminal Court Number 2 of Seville, where a man - academic head of a faculty - was sentenced for three continuous crimes of sexual abuse committed on three women, subordinate teachers of the aforementioned, and a crime of injury, concurring the mitigating circumstance of undue delays.

As indicated by the Public Prosecutor's Office, the Court of Seville -when resolving the appeal- attended the request of the convicted person and reduced the sentence for the three continuous crimes of sexual abuse from 7 years and 9 months in prison to 2 years and 8 months of deprivation of liberty, considering undue delays as a highly qualified mitigating circumstance. The court used as the start date of the calculation of the delay period the date of the first criminal act and not the time when the aggressor was formally charged.

Likewise, the magistrates acquitted the defendant of a one-year prison sentence for a crime of mental injuries, understanding that the psychological consequences suffered by one of the victims had not reached a sufficient autonomous category to be punished independently by the crime of sexual abuse.

The woman brought the case before the Constitutional Court, which admitted her appeal considering that it has special constitutional significance because "it can give the court an opportunity to clarify or change its doctrine, as a consequence of regulatory changes relevant to the configuration of the content of the fundamental right" .

Within the framework of the review carried out by the guarantee body, the Prosecutor's Office has requested that the sentence handed down by the Seville Court be annulled. The Public Prosecutor's Office has ensured that "the reasoning deficits in the appealed sentence were unequivocally aimed at favoring the legal position of the defendant, with the consequent harm to the victim, who was deprived of an unforced application of the legal system due to her status as a woman." ".

The Prosecutor's Office has concluded that the Court of Seville maintained "an unequivocal will to benefit the accused-male, (...) and to minimize the mental damage actually suffered by the victim-female", when estimating that it was not proven that the injuries suffered by the victim had an autonomous nature to the episodes of sexual abuse suffered in the workplace.

From the Public Ministry they have insisted that the main reason of the court was to understand that the actions deployed by the aggressor during the period of time had been similar for the three victims present in the process and had equally attacked the three complainants, surprising each other. that, despite this, the consequences would have been different for each of them.

In the opinion of the Prosecutor's Office, this argument reveals "without any justification" the suspicion or distrust of the Chamber regarding the true nature and seriousness of the psychic injuries of the amparo applicant.

The Prosecutor's Office has described as "unreasonable" the way of interpreting and applying the rules in this case. According to what he has said, the Chamber "destroyed" the contest of the continued crime of sexual abuse plus the crime of mental injuries, which lost the substantiveness that it had to have.

Regarding the undue delays, the Prosecutor's Office has criticized the court for advancing the start of the calculation to the date of the commission of the first proven act declared, a moment long before the presentation of the complaint, so that it is about minimizing the consequence penology that the defendant would have to suffer for the continued crime of sexual abuse.

The fiscal report has been based on recent legislation and on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court regarding the application of the gender perspective as a weighting element when interpreting and applying the rules to the specific case.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.