Today, the judgment issued on July 18, 2018, is made public, condemning Juana Rivas as the author of two crimes of child abduction to a penalty of five years in prison, compensating her ex-husband with 30,000 euros, and disqualifying her for six years from exercising parental authority over her children.
Based on absolute respect for all judicial decisions, the severity and significance of the imposed penalties are evident, as they not only condemn the accused but also two children to lose the bond with their mother, despite all specialist reports, including the one on which the judgment is based, confirming a positive and binding relationship between the minors and their parent.
From AMJE, we continue to maintain that what is perceived as disproportionate decisions or those dictated outside of social reality are merely the product of ignoring the obligation to integrate a gender perspective in the application of the law, and with it, interpreting the norm while safeguarding Human Rights.
The persistence of stereotypes in judicial work, such as those affirming the existence of a typical profile of a primary and atavistic abuser who must necessarily be perceptible, not only by the victim but also by their environment; or those questioning the veracity of the woman's testimony for not reporting the events while the abuse was occurring, lead to assessments of evidence and interpretations of the norm that, although legal, run the risk of enshrining a manifest injustice.
There are recent judicial pronouncements that expressly integrate the mandate to apply a gender perspective and the need to attend to the particular circumstances that may arise for those who report being victims of male violence. The Judgment of the 2nd Chamber of the Supreme Court of June 13, 2018, is clear when it says:
"Nor will it be a negative element towards the victim the circumstance that they delay in reporting acts of gender violence, given the special circumstances surrounding these cases in which victims may delay in making the decision to report because the accused is their partner, or ex-partner, which is a fact that may affect those doubts of the victims who are subjected to that special psychological position in which the person who has assaulted them is their own partner."
The non-integration of this perspective and a positioning of justice that did not sufficiently address the reports of abuse made by the mother of a minor already entailed the well-known condemnation of the CEDAW Committee of the United Nations to Spain for the murder of the daughter of Angela González (Opinion of July 16, 2014), among whose recommendations to our country, it expressly includes:
"Take appropriate and effective measures to ensure that the history of domestic violence is taken into account when stipulating custody and visitation rights relating to children, and that the exercise of visitation or custody rights does not endanger the safety of victims of violence, including children."
Opinion, whose effectiveness has been partially fulfilled in the recent Judgment of the 3rd Chamber of the Supreme Court of July 17, 2018, which has recognized her right to be compensated for the ineffective protection that the Spanish institutions and judicial bodies gave to her and her daughter, condemning the General State Administration for abnormal functioning of the Administration of Justice.
We cannot persist in the same errors and continue to ignore the legal and jurisprudential mandates that demand a Justice that adequately weighs the facts and the applicable law, always based on the principle of equality and the protection of minors.
We must stop being heirs of a patriarchal justice that society does not tolerate and the international community condemns, because only in this way can we maintain the confidence of citizens in their institutions.
By the Association of Women Judges of Spain (AMJE)