The TS establishes that those convicted of abuse with a restraining order cannot approach the victim even with his permission

Insists that judicial decisions must prevail over the wishes of the victim

MADRID, 21 Ene. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court (TS) has concluded that the fact that a victim of gender violence gives her consent to her partner to break a restraining order must always be understood within an "undeniable intimidating" context and lack of self-esteem of the victim "consubstantial to the prolonged episodes of domestic violence". Thus, the magistrates have established that judicial decisions must prevail against the wishes of the victim and that those convicted of this type of crime cannot approach them even with her permission.

In a sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, the court has studied the case of a man who was questioning the sentence imposed on him for violating a restraining measure because, as he defended, one of his sons had told him that the The woman had given him permission to come to her house.

The man was sentenced in January 2020 for a crime of minor threats in the field of gender violence to 22 days of community work and the prohibition of approaching less than 100 meters from his partner, his home, place of work or anywhere else you frequent. Six days later, after the divorce proceedings were held, he went to the woman's house and "using a blunt metallic object (...) with the intent to cause death" hit her on the head without warning.

According to the resolution, the woman fell to the ground and the man "continued to hit her repeatedly." One of the children in common, realizing what was happening, "took a pair of scissors from a piece of furniture to defend his mother." The father, however, hit him with the same object. The young man managed to escape and ask for help.

The convicted person took the case to the Supreme Court, considering that it was not "credible" to understand that he had tried to murder his partner. He insisted that that day he went home to ask the woman if she gave him permission to shower at her home, as one of her sons had told him. He also assured that the woman "fell fainting, because she suffered from diabetes and suffered from cervical pain" and that neither she nor the son who was attacked were able to clarify with what object they were hit.

The magistrates of the high court have dismissed these arguments and the rest of the allegations presented by the aggressor. They have insisted that he "knew that a restraining order weighed on him that prevented him from communicating or approaching his wife."

In this sense, the court has recalled that "judicial decisions can only be modified or suppressed by the judges and courts that have issued them and not by the people affected."

In the resolution, for which magistrate Juan Ramón Berdugo has been a speaker, the Supreme Court has stressed that the Constitutional Court itself has already established that "regardless of the wishes of the victim" what is dictated by judicial decisions must prevail. In other words, in these cases, even if the woman agrees to allow her partner to come to her or to her home, her restraining order will be violated.

In 40 pages, the magistrates have explained that the criminal law on gender violence has "purposes" that "cannot be achieved if the victim is allowed to annul decisions agreed upon by the judicial authority in their favor."

Thus, the Supreme Court has dismissed the aggressor's appeal and has confirmed the sentence imposed on him by the Provincial Court of Pontevedra --and which was endorsed by the Galician Superior Court of Justice-- of a total of 19 years in prison: 14 years and 4 months for a crime of attempted murder; 4 years and 2 months for a crime of aggravated injuries; and 6 months for a crime of breach of sentence.

The high court has also agreed to maintain the disqualification sentences, the restraining order for 34 years and the compensation of 47,000 euros for the woman and 15,500 euros for the son.