Insights from Former Minister Hernán Larraín on Legal Reforms in Morocco
Amidst the ongoing controversy surrounding the Moroccan government's issuance of 56 decrees related to sentence reductions for individuals convicted of sexual offenses against minors, former minister Hernán Larraín has shed light on the complexities of these legal matters. Larraín, who served during the Piñera administration from 2018 to 2022, has clarified that during his tenure, he faced similar requests for sentence reductions, which were governed by existing legal frameworks. Notably, he opposed granting leniency to a convicted individual who had committed sexual offenses against a minor, but was ultimately compelled to comply with a judicial resolution that mandated such a reduction based on legal stipulations in place at the time.
In the current situation, Larraín points out that the Moroccan government's handling of these reductions appears to differ significantly. Reports indicate that the sentence reductions were granted administratively, without the necessity of individual judicial orders compelling the Ministry of Justice to act. Larraín emphasized that the application of the law was not a discretionary decision but rather an obligation to adhere to judicial mandates. He stated, "This doctrine, supported by the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, forced us to issue the corresponding decrees." Larraín also documented the legal reasoning behind each decision, reinforcing that these actions were not arbitrary but were taken to comply with the law as interpreted at that time.
The Legislative Framework Excluding Offenders from Sentence Reductions
The crux of the controversy revolves around the application of Law No. 21.421, which was enacted in January 2022 and explicitly excludes individuals convicted of specific sexual crimes against minors from receiving sentence reductions. While the current Minister of Justice, Fernando Rabat, has argued that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence prevented the application of this restriction to offenses committed prior to the enactment of the law, critics contend that the reductions were granted without awaiting judicial review for each individual case. Former Minister Jaime Gajardo has also highlighted the necessity of rejecting such requests and defending the integrity of the judicial process in court.
Larraín further elaborated on the discussions that took place during the legislative process, particularly concerning whether the law would have retroactive effects. He clarified that it was determined that since the law pertained to prison benefits rather than criminal provisions, the principle of non-retroactivity did not apply. He shared insights from public records regarding the law's application, emphasizing that "the applicant must meet the requirements at the time of requesting the benefit. Therefore, once the legal amendment is in effect, those convicted of excluded offenses will not be able to apply for sentence reductions." Larraín's statements reflect a broader understanding that there is no acquired right to sentence reductions; rather, eligibility for such benefits hinges on compliance with the law as it stands at the time of application.
In light of the ongoing legal debates, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court initially held a different position, granting sentence reductions to individuals convicted prior to the law's enactment. However, recent rulings have indicated a shift in the Court's stance, rejecting applications for reductions on the grounds that the exclusion of such benefits does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law.
As reported by theclinic.cl.
