The ruling known as the ‘Yes means yes’ law changed the outcome for two defendants in a case commonly referred to as the Genoa package. Initially, the sentence was set at thirteen and a half years for each defendant. The Palma Court had handed down that sentence, and the defendants faced a lengthy prison term. After legal review, the sentence for both individuals was reduced to five and a half years, a difference of eight years. The Court of Higher Jurisdiction partly agreed with the defense and the prosecution on certain points, leading to this substantial reduction.
This incident involved a group sexual assault that occurred in the early hours of the morning. It happened on June 18, 2016, when a group of young people were at a bar on Paseo Marítimo. After closing time, two girls the group had met that night were offered a ride home by the defendants. The situation quickly escalated as the plan shifted and the route changed toward a secluded road near the Camí de Génova junction.
One of the victims was heavily intoxicated and fell asleep in the back seat. During the drive, one of the attackers stated that they were not headed home but for a different destination. The car’s direction shifted toward Genoa, and a threat was issued: either the sleeping friend or the other girl would be harmed. The group proceeded to stop the car and continue without returning the girls to a familiar location.
All three assaulted the victim
Out of the car, the attackers instructed the victim to sit in the driver’s seat and proceeded to undress. The victim was subjected to a sexual assault by three individuals. She did not resist, fearing for her safety and wanting to protect a friend who remained asleep in the vehicle.
During the ordeal, the victim managed to use her phone to feign a call to her mother. This ruse prompted the defendants to bring the girls back to a residence, where the night’s events continued to unfold. The Palma Court analyzed the events closely, but only two of the three defendants faced trial. Both men acknowledged that the acts constituted consensual intercourse, a version that conflicted with the victim’s testimony of rape. The panel acknowledged the victim’s account with greater weight and imposed a heavy sentence—thirteen and a half years for each defendant.
The sentence was appealed to the TSJB. The Chamber agreed with parts of the objection, particularly regarding delays in the proceedings. The trial had taken five years to reach a verdict. The court noted that the delay was not the fault of the defendants but a reflection of court inefficiencies. A high-quality mitigating circumstance was deemed applicable, further lowering the penalties for the two defendants.
In addition, the court considered the significant impact of delays and the broader context of the legal process. It also invoked the controversial ‘Yes means yes’ reform in the Criminal Code to adjust the penalties. As a result, the two defendants received a five and a half year sentence for the offense of sexual assault. The reduction meant that the defendants would serve eight fewer years in prison as a result of the legislative change and the court’s assessment. The original sentence of thirteen and a half years was transformed into a five and a half year term. Both individuals were required to serve time, but the duration was markedly shorter than the initial judgment.