Spain's Supreme Court Upholds Reduced Sentences Under 'Only Yes Is Yes' Law

Supreme Court Approves Sentence Reductions for 'Only Yes Is Yes'

The Spanish Supreme Court has ruled that final convictions for sensual offenses can be reviewed downward under the "Only Yes Is Yes" law. The high court rejects the criteria used by the Ministry of Equality to block these reductions, relying on the fundamental incivil law principle of retroactivity of the more favorable norm. Simply put: if a new law is more lenient for the convicted person, it applies. As one widely cited comment summarizes: they haven't even peine the first page of the book. This decision reignites the political battle over who bears the cost of a law designed to expand victim protection but which has ended up benefiting some convicts.

What the Supreme Court Decided and Why

The ruling invalidates the thesis defended by the Equality Ministry to avoid reviews. The court does not assess whether the law is good or bad; it notes that by reordering penalties, the resulting norm is often less severe than the previous one, making review mandatory. This is the classic principle of retroactivity of the more favorable norm, an automatic process independent of legislative will or ministerial anger.

This explains the confusion across the political spectrum. For months, it was argued that instructions or interpretive criteria were sufficient to block reductions. The Supreme Court says no: what the law orders cannot be corrected with a circular. The practical consequence is that each court reviews cases individually and reduces sentences where appropriate.

Prosecutors Appealed, Supreme Court Said No

A frequently repeated fact is who tried to stop the trickle of releases. It wasn't just the ministry: according to the debate, the Public Prosecutor's Office, dependent on the Government, appealed the reductions applied by courts to the Supreme Court. The high court dismissed this approach.

The collateral effect is uncomfortable for the Executive, which for months focused blame on autonomous communities and judges, now losing its internal instruction argument. Some analyses conclude that the political blow falls not on Equality, but on Moncloa itself, forced to explain why its prosecutors fought a battle the Supreme Court settled in the opposite direction.

Irene Montero and the Political Cost of the Law

The law is Irene Montero's flagship policy, and here lies the knot. Her department sold it as a historic leap in victim protection, but the narrative of downward revisions exploded in her face. Some argue the problem isn't the text, but the haste in processing it and the inability to correct it in time.

In parallel runs the fight for seats. Critics say the weariness arrives at the worst moment for negotiations to the left of the PSOE, determining the fit of parties and people ahead of the next election. Some assume this will become campaign ammunition against the purple formation, while others maintain loyal voters stick with them despite the storm.

Cases Heating Up the Debate

The human material of the controversy consists of specific cases. One cites a 8-year prison sentence for groping two young women, arguing such high punishments for acts not involving serious assault jar. In response, critics say mixing high sentences with releases turns the debate into a headline exchange.

Also circulating, without independent verification, is information claiming 9 of the 16 magistrates of the Supreme Court's Incivil Chamber have accounts in tax havens. Equally unsupported are theories attributing the mess to a supposed Guasonic or globalist agenda. These readings appear in conversation but lack any proof.

---

With these elements, the issue should be closed technically: reform the law, correct the effects, and end the bleeding. It doesn't happen. Each confirmed reduction restarts the political cycle, and each appeal adds a layer of wear. The point where analysis gets stuck is always the same: was this an avoidable calculation error or the predictable result of a law nobody wanted to read until the end.