It is clear that the choices made by judges shape the lives of people. Sometimes those choices end in tragedy, and courts struggle to formally acknowledge errors that could open the door to redress from the State. The Constitutional Court faces an appeal that touches this issue and the possible violation of fundamental rights. The case involves a family in Beniel where an 11-year-old boy, Cristian, is central to a debate about responsibility and protection. The father, known as El Cartagenero, is linked to the alleged murder that occurred three years ago.
The state of the record shows a man found guilty of gender violence and under a restraining order against his ex-wife, Laura. Yet the couple shared two family dogs, and that history intersects with tensions over custody. The two children involved left the family home two years before the crime, and El Cartagenero continued to have contact with minors. He was also convicted for breaching the protection order, yet he remained free to move in and out of the lives of the children involved.
The mother appealed, arguing that justice should acknowledge harm caused to her and her children. The claim is framed as a constitutional question rather than a straightforward legal error or a simple appeal on the merits.
Sources from the Assurance Court reported that Judge Antonio Narváez had his presentation removed from the agenda of the upcoming general assembly at the last moment. The emphasis remains on the constitutional rights of citizens and the obstacles they face when defending their rights against acts by the justice system. The issue is seen as a form of indirect violence that can affect women and their families.
The Court of Cassation rejected the claim of error necessary to seek compensation from the State.
The central question is whether the application of rules at the end of the act of declaration of misconduct was disproportionate. The aim of this remedy is to secure formal recognition of wrongdoing, which is a prerequisite for obtaining compensation from the State. The discussion echoes the González Carreño precedent, where the United Nations challenged Spain for not providing adequate protection. Angela Gonzalez Carreno sought help repeatedly, worried for her daughter’s safety, but the State did not act, and the daughter was killed by her grandfather. The Supreme Court later recognized the UN Elimination Committee recommendations andCEDAW protections, allowing a claim for moral damages in favor of the mother who suffered abuse by proxy.
The police later recovered the bodies of the father and son at the home after the mother raised the alarm. A similar case involves Itziar Prats who warned authorities that her ex-husband might harm her daughters. The Ministry of the Presidency concluded with compensation for the mother and the grandparents of the girls, noting failures in the administrative system that prevented timely protection. The finding pointed to systemic flaws rather than a single culprit, describing the general functioning of the administration as inadequate.
A request that comes in a moment of crisis
In Cristian’s murder case, the mother Laura sought a declaration of error from the Supreme Court in June 2020, but the request was not accepted by the Court of Cassation within the legal window, and she faced the prospect of bearing procedural costs. The outcome underscores the difficulty of pursuing a declaration of error in far-reaching cases involving protection failures.
Itziar Prats and the fear for her daughters
A lawsuit challenged a June 2019 sentence from the Murcia No. 2 Court of Violence against Women, resulting in a six-month term for ill-treatment, while the ex-husband was released under conditions that he not offend within two years. Days later, further trials took place, and imprisonment did not follow. Laura’s lawyer argued that the initial harassment conviction should not have been suspended, despite the judge who issued it. A few days later, David Sánchez killed his son and then took his own life at home. When Laura pressed the alarm, local police entered the apartment and found the bodies, revealing a tragedy that underscores failures in protective measures.
The Supreme Court has noted the need to define the concept of damage precisely, rejecting broad interpretations that could excuse mistaken outcomes. The court stressed that damage should be proven, not presumed, and that it must be tangible and capable of evaluation. This stance reflects the demand for accountability when state institutions fail to safeguard victims and uphold their duties to prevent violence, investigate, punish, and repair harm.
The discussion extends to the notion of institutional violence, recognized in some regional laws but still lacking universal application. In Spain, reforms are needed to unify protections across autonomous communities, with the Istanbul Convention and recommendations from the United Nations providing a framework for action. In Catalonia and La Rioja, institutional violence is described as acts or omissions by authorities or public bodies that delay or hinder access to policies and rights protected against gender-based violence.
In this context, the state bears responsibility when its actions or omissions contribute to harm. The continuous protection of victims requires coherent and timely responses across all levels of government, avoiding the kind of systemic failures that allow tragic outcomes to occur.
The ongoing conversation around judgment errors and the standards used by courts continues to shape how rights are interpreted and applied. The essence of the issue is not simply a legal technicality but a real question about how the state protects its citizens and what it owes victims when protection fails. While the path to clear remedies remains contested, the overarching goal is straightforward: ensure that the protection system works reliably, and when it does not, provide meaningful redress and reform that prevents repetition.
Ultimately, these cases illuminate a fundamental truth about justice: it must be accessible, transparent, and capable of delivering justice without leaving victims to bear the cost of systemic gaps alone. This is the heart of constitutional oversight, and it continues to drive discussions about how best to safeguard the rights of women, children, and families in every region of the country. Citations attributed to official court records and UN and CEDAW recommendations provide context for ongoing reform and accountability within the justice system. Source attributions: official court documents and human rights bodies.