The technical complexity of this case lies, among other things, in the fact that it is still “an open case”, explains the Government delegate against Sexist Violence Victoria Rosell
This Tuesday, November 29, the Second Chamber -Criminal- of the Supreme Court will review the appeal filed by the private prosecution, the popular prosecution (exercised by the Clara Campoamor Association) and the Prosecutor’s Office against the ruling of the Superior Court of Castilla and León, which reduced to a minimum the strong sentences imposed by the Court of Burgos on three players from the Arandina football club, accused by a minor of having sexually assaulted her. The analysis of this cause has been placed in the focus of public interest due to the fact that it may involve the first resolution of the Supreme Court that sheds light, advancing in the unification of doctrine, on the controversial application of the law of ‘only yes is yes’ ‘. But doubts persist as to whether this will finally end up being so. Or in what way
The Criminal Chamber has already asked the parties, including the defense of the convicted, if they consider that the new rule on the guarantee of sexual freedom affects or not this case, judged under the previous Penal Code. The facts, succinctly, confirm how in the first instance the Court of Burgos sentenced the three defendants to 38 years in prison in 2019, considering it proven that they had assaulted a minor two years earlier; some penalties that the High Court attenuated in a very notable way by lowering the classification of the crime to abuse as there was no intimidation, which led to the acquittal of one of the defendants and sentences of three and four years for the other two.
The State Attorney General’s Office, which this week has issued an instruction to the members of the race to try to alleviate the undesired effect of the ‘only yes is yes’ law, maintains in a report that the rule is applicable to this case with the objective of stiffening penalties. The Public Ministry explains that the criminal forks of the recently released legislative change enable it to maintain before the Supreme the request of 10 years in prison for the three Arandina players.
But the technical complexity of this case lies, among other things, in the fact that it is still “an open case,” explains the Government delegate against Sexist Violence Victoria Rosell. In other words, the appeal before the Supreme Court is in cassation for sentences that are not final. And one thing is a review of the sentence and another, the review of sentences already imposed, that the aggressors are serving and that are the subject of the controversy over the application of the “only yes is yes” law that came into force on 7 October.
Regardless of the effects that this legal distinction ends up having, both the Prosecutor’s Office and Rosell trust that the high court will assume the appeals in the sense of raising the sentence of the Arandina defendants. What would show, emphasizes the judge today in the Government, the relevance of the new regulations.
#Doubts #Arandina #case #path #doctrine #Supreme #Court