Nine months in prison and the deprivation of the right to possess and carry weapons for 3 years, in addition to a restraining order and communication with the victim also for 3 years. This is the sentence that has been imposed on a woman for a crime of injury to her partner, with whom she got into a mutual aggression in her home in Costa Teguise. This is how the Provincial Court of Las Palmas has resolved, which has dismissed the defendant's appeal and ratified the first instance sentence, which condemned both spouses. The ruling appeals to the "respect that each member of the couple deserves" and considers the fact that the victim was her sentimental partner is an "aggravating factor" that deserves a "plus of punishment".
He had a criminal record and had previously been convicted of a crime of injury in the family environment, to 4 months in prison. In addition, he had a restraining order against her for that reason that was in force when the events occurred, on February 15, 2015. The sentence of the Criminal Court 1 of Arrecife, which has now been ratified by the Court, took this into account in its ruling and sentenced him for the violation of that order to 6 months in prison, plus another 18 months for the crime of injury. In total, 2 years in prison.
As for her, the ruling stated that her version "is not credible." The defendant claimed that she "limited herself to putting her hands" in the face of her partner's aggression, but the sentence indicates that this statement does not explain "the injuries that the defendant also presents" and that, according to the forensic doctor, were "compatible with the existence of an aggression".
Notice for "gender violence"
The sentence, which points out that both she and he had their "volitional and intellectual capacities slightly diminished" by alcohol consumption when the fight occurred, considers it proven that the defendant "scratched her partner's face and arms." According to the enumeration, the aggression caused this man an "excoriation" on one cheek, an "inflammation with hematoma and erosion" on the lip and several "superficial linear excoriations" on both forearms.
Several agents of the Civil Guard came to the home of both, where the altercation occurred, who had been alerted by "an episode of gender violence." However, when the agents arrived they observed that "not only the appellant but also her partner presented injuries." In fact, he also had to be transferred to a health center and both were arrested. She, for her part, had received "several punches in the face and blows to her left hand", which caused inflammation in her scalp and around her eye, an erosion on her lip and also an incomplete fissure in her little finger, so she had to wear a splint.
Her defense requested her acquittal or, failing that, that her actions be considered as a misdemeanor and not as a crime of injury. To this end, she presented a series of arguments that have been rejected, one by one, in this new sentence of the Provincial Court, dated May 24. The ruling dwells especially on responding to one of those arguments, which argued that the facts would not be a crime, but a misdemeanor of injury. According to the defense, the criminal type on which the sentence was based requires a "situation of inequality" in the couple that, in his opinion, did not occur in this case.
Protection of "family peace" and "not only the integrity of women"
"The legal right protected in the type is not only the physical, psychic, sexual and moral integrity of women, but also family peace", points out the ruling of the Court in this regard, alluding to the aggressions to whom "is or has been her spouse" that the Penal Code includes. It continues alluding to the "respect that each member of the couple deserves as a whole and in an individualized way as part of it, so that every aggression deserves a plus of punishment that would only be filled with the penalty that entails the qualification of the fact as a crime and not the scarce penalty of the facts if they deserved the consideration of a misdemeanor".
The sentence explains that, in these cases, the penalty is greater when the victim is a woman who has or has had a sentimental bond with the aggressor. Thus, it points out that when interpreting this type of crime, resorting to the Law of Gender Violence "ceases to make sense." The ruling alludes to several sentences of the Supreme Court, which point out aspects such as that "not every action of physical violence within the couple that results in minor injury to the woman should be considered necessarily and automatically as gender violence" and that this will be done "exclusively" when the fact is "manifestation of discrimination, the situation of inequality and the relations of power of men over women".
In this way, the sentence dismisses that argument, stating that "it lacks relevance" the "reason why the discussion began or the existence of a possible situation of inequality between both", since it does consider "accredited" the existence of a "sentimental relationship analogous to the conjugal" and also "the aggression of which each of them was the object by the other". Therefore, it considers "evident" that the facts must be considered a crime of injury and not a misdemeanor.
The appeal pointed out, also, that the accused and assaulted had not been informed of his "right not to testify", something that the court replies that "is not applicable" when there is a relationship of kinship between the accused, nor, as was the case, when the witness is present as a private prosecution in the process. He also alleged that the photographs of "blood stains on the bed" had not been taken into consideration, which in his opinion "corroborated" the version that she was "in bed" when she was attacked and limited herself to "defending herself." The sentence does not consider it so and emphasizes that, "regardless of the place where the fight took place, aggressions by both parties have been proven."
