The Comprehensive Sexual Freedom Guarantee Act is being considered for reform after being highlighted by the PSOE with roughly 400 so‑called “undesirable effects.” This initiative does not alter the core concern linked to the La Manada case, which sits at the heart of the policy promoted by the Ministry of Equality since its October implementation—reductions in sentences and potential early release for sex offenders.
In Navarra, the Second Circuit of the Navarra County Court declined to commute a 15-year sentence handed down by the Supreme Court to one of five individuals convicted of gang rape during the Sanfermines festivities in 2016. The defendant, Ángel Boza, faces a reduction to 13 years and 9 months only, as the case proceeds through appeals.
In the ruling announced this Monday, which remains subject to appeal at the Navarra High Court of Justice, judges indicate a 15-year prison term may still be appropriate. “In crimes against sexual freedom, enforcement should align with the new regulation,” the court stated.
The law, commonly referred to as the “only yes is yes” statute, emerged in response to public critique of the initial sentencing in cases connected to the harassment incidents involving members of Irene Montero’s ministry. It aimed to redefine certain offenses and shift the handling of various sexual assaults toward a broader interpretation of consent and responsibility.
As sentence reductions began to surface about a month after the changes took effect, Navarrese judges signaled they would reconsider reductions only if the sentence met the new thresholds described in the Penal Code, and only if the offense’s severity warranted a lighter penalty than the maximum under the updated law. This stance limited Boza’s potential sentence reduction.
Foundational considerations at the Supreme Court
Both the prosecution and the victim’s attorney opposed the defendant’s defense strategy. To avoid lowering the sentence, the Navarra Court reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s rationale, arguing that it was appropriate to impose a 15-year term on five defendants for the ongoing sexual assault case from the earlier trial period.
The high court added that the extension of the sentence is provided for by law, in line with articles 1, 2 and 74 of the Penal Code, which outline a sentence range from 14 years, 3 months and 1 day to 18 years depending on the circumstances.
The court explained that, when planning and carrying out multiple acts against one or more victims under a single criminal scheme, the penalty should reflect the most serious offense in the sequence, potentially placing the sentence in the upper tier of the range.
According to the Court of Cassation, the proposed 15-year extension is near the legal minimum and remains closely tied to the personal circumstances of the accused and the gravity of the act, as described in the sentence’s factual section.
Factors considered in evaluating seriousness include post‑crime conduct, cooperative behavior during proceedings, and attitudes toward the victim, as well as whether non-criminal harms have been repaired—elements the court views as aggravating when they occur after the fact.
“In truth, the facts are grave, and the defendants’ conduct described in the following sentence amplifies the offense,” the Supreme Court concluded, underscoring that the case justified a higher sentence within the statutory bounds due to the conduct and the broader harm caused.
In this context, Part Two of the Trial process emphasizes careful individualization by the Supreme Court and notes that the 15-year sentence was still appropriate under the new rules governing sexual offenses.
Data landscape remains partial
At present, the number of defendants convicted under the new penalty framework created by the ‘only yes is yes’ law that benefit from its provisions exceeds 400, reflecting sentence reviews and subsequent adjustments under the updated standard.
Since October 7, when the rule took effect, at least 28 individuals have been released under the new framework. Most decisions to mitigate sentences have cited Article 2.2 of the Criminal Code, noting the guiding principle of applying the law that is most favorable to the accused.
Nevertheless, the absence of comprehensive official figures complicates a full assessment of the law’s impact. Several high courts and county courts do not publish data, including some major regional courts with substantial caseloads such as the four Catalan provinces or the Seville Provincial Court.
Montero herself described the data situation as “unheard of,” noting there was no official tally on how many sentences were reviewed, how many were upheld, and how many changes remained unresolved as of that moment.