Supreme Court Ruling Contradicts Justice Minister’s Position on Sexual Offenses
In a significant ruling that has stirred controversy within the Moroccan legal system, the Supreme Court recently issued a decision that contradicts the assertions made by Justice Minister Fernando Rabat regarding the sentencing of sexual offenders. The court's ruling, which was delivered on February 24, 2026, explicitly rejected a plea for a reduced sentence filed by Floridor Campos Silva, a convicted rapist who had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for sexually abusing two minors under the age of 14. The Supreme Court's decision highlights the complexities surrounding the application of the law and the implications it has for those convicted of sexual offenses in Morocco.
Minister Rabat had previously claimed that the Supreme Court had established a uniform criterion that would allow for sentence reductions for convicted individuals exhibiting good behavior. However, the ruling from the second criminal chamber of the Supreme Court has clarified that the legislation in question does not grant an automatic right to a reduced sentence, but rather provides a discretionary benefit that must adhere to specific legal requirements. The court noted that the application of the law, particularly Law 21.421, which was enacted in January 2022 under former President Sebastián Piñera, excluded individuals convicted of sexual crimes from benefitting from sentence reductions.
Implications of the Ruling and Political Reactions
The ramifications of this ruling are far-reaching, as it not only challenges the authority of Minister Rabat but also raises questions about the previous administration's handling of sexual offense cases. During the tenure of former President Gabriel Boric, 276 sentence reductions were granted for sexual offenses, a statistic that has come under scrutiny in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision. The Communist Party has threatened to hold Minister Rabat accountable, indicating that this issue transcends mere legal implications and delves into the political arena, where both the current and former administrations could face backlash.
As discussions continue, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are proposing legislation aimed at preventing further sentence reductions for sexual offenders. This legislative push underscores the urgency of addressing the perceived leniency in the judicial treatment of sexual crimes, reflecting a societal demand for stricter measures to protect victims and uphold justice.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that the plea for a reduced sentence was based on a misconception of a "right" to a reduction, reiterating that the law only provides a possibility contingent on fulfilling specific legal criteria. This decision reinforces the notion that legal interpretations must be consistent and accountable, ensuring that victims' rights are prioritized in the judicial process.
As reported by ex-ante.cl.
