Overview of a Recent Alicante Case Under the ‘Yes Means Yes’ Legislation
In Alicante, the courts addressed a new punishment framework tied to the interpretation of the sex crimes law commonly referred to as the “yes is yes” reform. The defendant, a Belarusian national residing in the province, faced a sentence of one year in prison after trial for an act of sexual violence against his wife, allegedly in the presence of their daughter. He did not serve the sentence in Spain, as he left the country following sentencing. Consequently, the court proceeded in absentia and requested that Belarus authorities extradite him so the sentence could be served on Spanish soil. The court had already reduced his potential term from four years and six months to three years prior to his incarceration.
The incidents occurred in 2018 at the family home in Orihuela Costa, where the attacker lived with his wife and two adult daughters. On April 22, 2018, the defendant allegedly forced his wife into a room, compelled her to have sexual intercourse, and attempted to exert control when the daughter became aware of the situation and raised alarms. A nearby room was involved as witnesses later recalled the mother being restrained. The daughter, armed with a knife, opened the door, and the accused halted his actions, eventually leaving the residence when confronted by family members. The scene played out in front of the daughter, who described the events with clarity during the trial.
The case extended beyond the single incident, with the wife alleging ongoing sexual assaults accompanied by threats and ongoing mistreatment. Prosecutors sought a sentence exceeding thirteen years in light of the continuing sexual violence, coercive conduct, and threats that accompanied the relationship. The Alicante court found the sexual assault suffered by the daughter to be proven, resulting in a primary sentence of four and a half years. An additional eight months were added for threats uttered during an argument in front of other relatives, including a ter menacing statement about killing the wife and harming belongings. The altercation occurred on August 1 of that year, contributing to the victim’s records of abuse and intimidation during intercourse and in other contexts.
During the proceedings, the defendant asserted that the complaint was unfounded, arguing that the wife aimed to secure control of marital assets hidden in Belarus, assets he could not claim due to his military status. The couple’s finances, disputed since 2017, had become a point of contention as suspicions of infidelity and asset misappropriation emerged. The court ultimately did not accept all of the wife’s allegations as proven, but accepted certain facts based on witness testimony. The convictions that stood were grounded in the episodes observed by witnesses rather than disputed accusations that lacked corroboration.
Revision and Enforcement
When the time came to carry out the sentence, the accused had returned to Belarus, prompting a formal request for modification under the newly defined penalties associated with the Sexual Freedom Law, commonly called the “yes is yes” framework. The prosecution opposed any revision, arguing that the sentence should be upheld as previously determined. In line with prior judicial practice, the panel considered whether the revised penalties could apply to the ongoing case, recognizing that certain offenses previously governed by older statutes could see a different range under the new laws. The court accepted a reduction, citing that the offense could be addressed under the pre-existing regulatory framework for imprisonment, which ranged from six to twelve years, and that the defendant should benefit from the most favorable rule available to him.
As with similar cases, the court emphasized that the principle of favorable application applies even after the sentence is served, allowing for a reduced term when circumstances fit the revised legislative approach. The resolution acknowledged the defendant’s absence from the country at the time of execution but confirmed that the adjusted sentence would be applied if enforcement proceeds. The decision reflected a cautious balance between the protective aims of the reform and the need to respect procedural and evidentiary standards established in the prior proceedings.
The ruling underscores how the reform’s approach to sexual violence affects sentencing and post-sentence considerations. It demonstrates the court’s attempt to align past judgments with contemporary penalties while ensuring that victims’ testimonies and the sequence of events are preserved in the record. The case illustrates the ongoing legal discourse around how new statutes interact with older convictions and how courts navigate extradition and international cooperation to enforce domestic punishments.