“We do not warn in this way that the decision of the Provincial Court that is appealed here is arbitrary, lacking in foundation or contrary to any legal precept. It is a mere and reasonable consequence of the new devaluation of the conduct carried out by Organic Law 10/2022, of September 6, in the field of crimes against sexual freedom and the new model that it promoted to structure its punishment”.
The affirmation is included in the sentence referring to the key case that the Plenary of the Supreme Court addressed at its meeting on June 6, in which it examined almost thirty appeals referring to revisions of final sentences to sexual offenders as a consequence of the law of the only yes is yes.
The Supreme Court has begun to notify the resolutions it addressed then, referring to both the prosecutor’s appeals against the reductions and those sentenced to whom they had not been granted. They went ahead unanimously, except in one case: the record reduction of nine years in prison for a man convicted of a triple rape in which violence was used. The 25 years imposed were reduced to nine, as a result of the reduction of the minimum sentence for an aggravated violation, which went from 12 to seven years.
The division of the Plenary in this case led to a change of presentation. The sentence finally elaborated by the magistrate leopold bridge has the particular votes of the magistrates Andres Palomo (initial speaker), Andres Martinez Arrieta, Antonio del Moral, Ana Ferrer y Susana Polo.
The ruling begins by ruling out that they can be applied to the reform of the Yes is yes the provisions that were incorporated into the Penal Code of 1995, when it replaced the previous one of 1973 that limited the revisions. This rejection of the thesis that the State Attorney General’s Office ordered to support is common to all the endorsed reviews and did not generate division in the room.