Morocco's Justice Minister Addresses Sentence Reductions for Sexual Offenders
In recent days, Morocco's Minister of Justice and Human Rights, Fernando Rabat, has staunchly defended the decision to grant sentence reductions to 56 individuals convicted of sexual offenses against minors. Rabat argues that the Ministry acted in accordance with the Constitution, existing legislation, and the criteria established by the Supreme Court in handling amparo resources. The core of Rabat's argument hinges on the legal reform enacted in 2022, which explicitly excluded individuals convicted of certain sexual offenses against minors from eligibility for such benefits. According to him, this restriction cannot be applied retroactively to events that occurred prior to the law's enactment, as this would violate the constitutional principle against the retroactive application of criminal laws detrimental to the convicted party.
The Minister elaborated that the 2022 legal reform unequivocally prohibits all individuals convicted of sexual offenses from obtaining these benefits. "Since that date, none of these benefits have been granted," Rabat stated. However, he clarified that applications related to convictions prior to this amendment must be evaluated based on the rules and jurisprudence that were in effect at the time of the offenses. "What the Ministry of Justice has done is to uphold the constitutional principle established in Article 19, number 3, and this has been reflected in each resolution issued, emphasizing the severity of these crimes," he affirmed.
In this context, Rabat pointed out that there is a widely accepted judicial interpretation that has favored amparo resources from convicted individuals whose requests for sentence reductions were previously denied. He believes that this precedent backs the Ministry's criteria in granting these benefits directly. Furthermore, he compared the current government's decisions to those made during the previous administration, noting that over 275 administrative resolutions related to these benefits were issued during former President Gabriel Boric's term, although many of those reductions were only accepted after judicial intervention.
Continuing on this line of reasoning, Rabat expressed support for legislative proposals aimed at closing loopholes left by the 2022 legislation. He announced the suspension of the processing of sentence reduction decrees for offenders, alongside a series of legislative measures designed to prevent individuals convicted of sexual offenses against children from accessing these benefits in the future. This includes pushing for the establishment of Execution Courts.
Details gathered indicate that Rabat instructed the suspension of reviews for sentence reduction requests on October 22, until the new law designed to block such benefits is approved. This decision was only made public recently during an interview with Tele13. Rabat emphasized that “four years have passed without anyone tackling this issue,” and outlined the government's commitment to halt the processing of decrees while pursuing legal reforms to ensure that convicted individuals do not benefit from reductions, even if their crimes occurred prior to 2023.
Supreme Court's Standpoint on the Matter
Rabat's justifications have raised questions about the extent of the criteria attributed to the Supreme Court. When approached for comments, the President of the Supreme Court, Gloria Ana Chevesich, refrained from commenting on specific decisions, indicating that determining whether there is a generalized jurisprudence requires a thorough analysis of the referenced rulings. "I will not comment on this matter. The Minister of Justice issued decrees within the legal framework he possesses, and I will also refrain from commenting on the Supreme Court's decisions, as each case is analyzed on its own merits," Chevesich stated.
In light of further inquiries regarding the existence of a uniform criterion, Chevesich added that a review of the relevant rulings would be necessary to ascertain whether a common jurisprudence truly exists. The ongoing debate surrounding the Ministry's initial criteria modification has attracted attention. Reports indicate that initially, requests for reductions were denied, but the Ministry later shifted its stance to consider the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in resolving these cases.
Legal experts have expressed differing views regarding the nature of these reductions. While some judges have classified the matter as criminal, adhering to the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law, others have approached it as an administrative act, which has led to the rejection of amparo resources. Academic Fernando Londoño from Diego Portales University argued that it fundamentally constitutes a penal matter, albeit its application is dependent on administrative processes. Former prosecutor Marcelo Santelices, on the other hand, suggested that the issue encompasses both administrative and penal elements, as it involves the powers vested in the Ministry and the implications for penalties handed down by courts.
As reported by emol.com.
