derecho penal

 The court reviewed a decision made by the ‘Family Commissioner’ (Comisario de Familia) and endorsed by the Family Judge (Juzgado de Familia), denying the plaintiff’s request for precautionary measures against the defendant, based on physical and psychological aggressions. The Commissioner estimated that there was not enough evidence as to affirm that the risk to the plaintiff’s life or integrity. Given the parties’ mutual aggression, the Commissioner advised the couple to cease all acts of violence against each other.

The case concerned women’s sexual and reproductive rights, specifically the right to voluntarily terminate the pregnancy. The court ruled that sexual and reproductive rights, including abortion in certain circumstances, are subject to constitutional protection. A pregnant woman’s husband requested that the health care provider perform a genetic and pathological test on the fetus and the termination of his wife’s pregnancy, based on an alleged diagnosis of malformation, among other complications. The doctor refused upon conscientious objection.

Two minor children, an eight-year-old boy and a twelve-year-old girl, were raped by their father, once and multiple times over several years, respectively. The defendant was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but the criminal court of appeals reduced the sentence to 19.6 years in prison on October 11, 2001, after finding that the 20-year sentence was impermissible under Paraguay’s sentencing guidelines.

The case concerned domestic violence and resulted in a one-year prison sentence pursuant to Article 229 of the Criminal Code. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the police, alleging that three days earlier, at approximately 6:00 A.M., her husband punched her and threatened to kill her during an argument. The evidence showed that this violence was not an isolated incident, but part of a continuous behavior by the defendant.

The case concerned issues of language in judicial rulings that led to revictimization. The protected applicant, the leader of an association of peasant women, was kidnapped and raped by an illegal armed group that considered her a threat. The plaintiff brought suit against two potential perpetrators who were acquitted by the court of Cundinamarca. The Constitutional Court ruled to exclude a section of the aforementioned decision because of the section’s use of vulgar and disqualifying expressions in relation to the victim of sexual violence.

This judicial review concerned domestic violence. The court ruled that there ought to be greater criminal sanctions for domestic violence offenses. The law provides for four to eight years of imprisonment in cases of domestic violence, irrespective of the magnitude of the injuries. The plaintiff claimed that the article went against the proportionality principle set forth by the Colombian Constitution.

The case concerned abortion, the right to life, the right to health, and the right to self-determination. The court ruled for the partial decriminalization of abortion and set circumstances under which voluntary termination of pregnancy would be permissible. The Criminal Code previously criminalized voluntary abortion with one to three years of imprisonment.

In this case, the defendant, the mayor of a Colombian town, was convicted of rape and non-consensual abortion. The penalty was 261 months of imprisonment and 20 years of disqualification from exercising political roles in the public sector. The prosecutor argued that the defendant had several sexual encounters with the plaintiff, a minor, against her will and, as a result, she got pregnant. The defendant forced the plaintiff to terminate the pregnancy. The defendant argued before the Supreme Court of Justice that the appellant court omitted at least seven fundamental testimonies.

This law extended the powers of authorities in investigations of alleged crimes of violence against women as well as amended the domestic violence and food assistance provisions, as contained in articles 229 and 233 of the Criminal Code.  With the issuance of this law, the prosecutor is allowed to engage in investigations of the aforementioned crimes at the moment it learns from the conduct in any manner, thus, the prosecutor no longer has to wait until someone presses charges to start the correspondent investigations.

This law aims to develop article 42 of the Constitution which establishes standards to prevent, remedy, and punish domestic violence. The Law stipulates the behaviors considered violative of structured harmony/unity within a family, protective measures against domestic violence, medical and physiological assistance for victims, and sanctions by the courts against the aggressor.