Thursday, October 28

The PP amends to the entirety the Law of ‘only if it is yes’ and says that it “instrumentalizes the pain of the victims”

The popular parliamentary group has registered this Friday in Congress an amendment to the entirety with an alternative text to the Law of Comprehensive Guarantee of Sexual Freedom, known as the ‘Law of only yes is yes’, considering that it has an “ideological bias” , and opposes the drafting of express consent and the abolition of the distinction between abuse and rape.

The popular group considers that it is a “Manichean regulation, with a marked ideological bias, very deficient from a technical-legal point of view” and “of questionable constitutionality.”

“A text that instrumentalizes the pain and feelings of the victims of these despicable events since, in the end, they will not be improved in their protection and comprehensive intervention,” says the amendment of the popular group, to which Europe has had access Press, and that advocates a text that responds to the need to improve the proportionality of the criminal response to situations of sexual violence suffered especially by women, minors and people with disabilities.

The GPP considers that the pillar on which the regulation continues to pivot is the maintenance of express consent and it opposes this because it considers that it is “to the detriment of legal certainty and the principle of presumption of innocence”.

In addition, he adds that “the problems in determining whether there has been a sexual crime will be the same as before: the existence of evidence and not mere testimony.”

The popular group also opposes the abolition of the distinction between abuse and rape because, in their opinion, this “means eliminating the principle of proportionality from the Penal Code, violating legal security.”

Likewise, it indicates that there is a shift in the burden of proof since it would fall on the defense to exclude criminality, “even affecting the principle of presumption of innocence.”

On the other hand, it emphasizes that eliminating the distinction between sexual assault and sexual abuse implies eliminating the principle of proportionality prevailing in the Penal Code.

“There are no rights without legal security, victims are left unprotected and in limbo regarding their rights. This does not achieve the objective of better protecting victims of sexual violence,” he emphasizes, in addition to highlighting that it is not a law that protects the sexual freedom of all citizens.

In addition, the popular group points out that there are no personal or material resources to provide the measures included in the Bill. For example, it affirms that police unions have denounced that there is not enough specialized staff for the victims and not enough Comprehensive Violence Assessment Units of Gender in the Courts.

Likewise, the popular group affirms that the Bill can be improved from the point of view of women with disabilities. Specifically, it points out that CERMI recalls that laws must take as a reference the United Nations International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

For all these reasons, the popular group has presented an amendment to the entirety with an alternative text in order to favor “greater clarity” in the classification of these behaviors, based on two points: the reform of article 181, paragraph 1 and 2, maintaining the the same remainder and, therefore, the crime of sexual abuse “in order to provide greater clarity to the entire penal text”; and incorporate as an aggravating factor in articles 180 and 183 that the offense is committed by the annulment of the will by chemical submission.