The role of the Ministry of Justice is decisive in the processing of laws such as the ‘only yes is yes‘. Precisely today, its manager, Pilar Llop, has ruled on the aforementioned rule and the controversy generated after the initiative that the PSOE has presented alone to reform it.
Llop has made it clear that if the standard is not modified, “more revisions” will take place, so the only objective of said reform is “avoid sentence reductions“. With this “technical readjustment”, the minister has insisted that “models or consents” will not be touched, but that a “solution for the victims” will be offered.
In this sense, the person in charge of Justice has also explained that “with a wound“The victim can already prove that they have suffered violence. “Now if it is shown that there is violence and intimidation, it is very easy to prove it because with a wound it can already be proven that there has been”, Llop has said to justify that the reform does not touch The consent.
“With a Wound”
These statements about “injuries” to prove that there has been violence has added more tension to relations with government partners. From United We Can they have not been slow to criticize the words of the socialist minister and have warned that it is “that is where they do not want to return.”
“If proving violence in a sexual assault is so simple, why in 2021 of 4,000 sentences only 500 women were able to prove it? Again the focus on women, how much we resist, if we close our legs. It is the model of ‘La Manada’, not that of consent”, lamented the general secretary, Ione Belarra.
In it, the secretary of Organization of the purples, Lilith Verstrynge, has asked herself:what happens if there is no injury? “Is it assumed that it has been consented to? It will have to be shown that it has not. In other words, this reform returns to the previous model,” he remarked.
Also the Minister of Equality, Irene Montero, has described as “throwback for women” the proposal of the PSOE and has remembered that if the center is not in the consent, it would suppose an “ordeal of evidence” for the victims themselves. “Their problem is that they have never accepted the ‘only yes is yes’. He assumes a probationary ordeal having to prove the wounds and marks of that violence on the body,” added Montero.