The public prosecutor’s office has asked the Constitutional Court to annul the sentence of the Seville court, which was reduced to a university professor for abusing several subordinates at the Faculty of Education Sciences of the University of Seville. . Her sentence was reduced to two years and eight months in prison, among other things, because the victims took some time to report her, and the prosecution understands that those court arguments “unequivocally” favored the defendant and that the victim was “included because her status as a woman legally as a result of non-forced use of the system”.
This is the case of Santiago Romero, a professor at the University of Seville, who was convicted of sexually assaulting several professors in his department between 2006 and 2010, who denounced him in 2011. The process dragged on until the criminal court gave its verdict. At the end of 2016, and the Seville court did the same three years later, in December 2019.
He was sentenced to seven years and nine months in prison for three counts of sexual assault and one count of wounding, but the court suspended the sentence at two years and eight months, just under half that. They withdrew the injury charge and reduced the sentence for assault due to undue delay in the process. According to the judges of the Seville court, part of these delays stemmed from the time it took for the victims to be condemned: “The complaint was filed approximately two years after the last act committed by the applicant and there are relevant delays. Processing of this cause, which is not caused by the actions of the accused,” reads the second sentence.
The victims took the case to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the delay in reporting sex crimes, which is common in these situations, as recognized by the Supreme Court, cannot be penalized by the prosecution. What courts have always been unanimous in their sentencing is that a delay in reporting abuse or sexual assault cannot adversely affect the victim’s credibility or, in itself, benefit the abuser if convicted.
Now it is the prosecutor’s office that supports this appeal and asks the Constitutional Court to cancel this sentence of the Court of Seville, which drastically reduced the sentence of this professor of the University of Seville, a case that is being considered by the Court of Guarantee. His doctrine of gender perspective. This is the argument of the Public Ministry: “The need to consider the procedures from a gender perspective,” the statement said.
For the prosecution, the Seville court acted “unreasonably” in applying the rules and also, it claims, “unambiguously allowed the accused man, (…) and to minimize the psychological damage in reality. The victim woman was affected.” The arguments used by the Chamber, for example, to convict him of the crime of injury, reveal “without any justification, the Chamber’s suspicion or mistrust as to the true nature and seriousness of the mental injuries of the Amparo applicant”.
He also criticizes that, in examining improper delays, the Constitution begins the count as a result of the first episode of violence, “in an attempt to minimize the penological consequences that the defendant will face for the crime of continuing sexual assault.” .
Source: El Diario