The Supreme Court (TS) has convicted a man who had been acquitted of this crime, although convicted by others, for a crime of habitual mistreatment, determining that, to appreciate it, a mere succession of perfectly identifiable violent actions is not required, but that “creating a prolonged climate of intimidation and contempt is tantamount to psychological violence”.

The Criminal Chamber, in a presentation by magistrate Javier Hernández, ruled on the case of a man who during the two years of relationship he had with a woman, although “especially during the last three months”, “created a climate of submission and permanent control, maintaining a continuous aggressive attitude”, “with the intention of undermining the physical and mental integrity of his partner”.

According to the account of proven facts, “from the beginning of the relationship and moved by jealousy, the defendant told him: 'I want the most important person in your life to be me, and then your children, I need a woman who prioritizes me before all '”. This caused the woman to “avoid going out with anyone else, preventing her from the normal development of her life”. He ended up “controlling all his movements.”

“He frequently yelled at her, threw objects at her” and insulted her to the point of making threats of all kinds, such as “I'm going to kill you or your children” and “I'm going to burn the floor,” details the Supreme Court.. Specifically, it includes an episode in which, at dawn, he told him: “I'll kill myself but first I'll kill you to make it worth it”. He then “began to push her against the walls and the floor, and beat her with his fists all over her body” until he threw her against the nightstand.

As a consequence of all this, the woman “developed an adjustment disorder, with psychological repercussions consisting of minimizing violent behaviors, blaming them and high emotional dependence”, as well as “false sense of control of the situation and decreased perception of the seriousness and existing danger”.

The Criminal Court Number 9 of Barcelona sentenced him to three and a half years in prison for crimes of mistreatment, injuries and habitual violence in the family environment. After an appeal by the defendant, the Provincial Court acquitted him of the crime of habitual violence and maintained the other two crimes, adding one of minor threats, which meant leaving the sentence in one year, ten months and 17 days in jail.

The woman appealed to the Supreme Court to reconvict her for a habitual crime of violence, rejecting the crime of minor threats.. The high court agrees with him, setting the man's sentence at two years and two days in prison, considering that in this case “all the markers” are given that allow us to identify habitual abuse.

“Continued Alienation”

The Supreme Court explains that the protected legal right is “the peaceful coexistence between people linked by family ties or by close relationships of affection or coexistence”. “Humiliating, harassing, creating, in short, a prolonged climate of intimidation and contempt is equivalent in normative terms to psychological violence,” the magistrates clarify.

They state that, “very often, continued psychological violence paralyzes, deprives the person who suffers it of the reaction capacity and self-protection necessary to emancipate himself from his perpetrator”, for which reason it “objectifies” the injured person and, when occurs in the family environment, “reveals the existence of an unequal relationship based on a position of intolerable domination”.

A “hellish atmosphere” is generated

Thus, they define habitual mistreatment as a “state crime” consisting of “the generation of a habitual climate of violence, subjection and domination that is projected on all those who, regardless of their number, have been locked up – worth the expression – in that circle.”

“Result, therefore, differentiated from those derived from the different actions of mental or physical violence that are directed against one or more of the specific people affected,” they emphasize.

The Supreme Court thus ratifies that “the habituality” that this type of crime claims “is not measured by a simple reiteration of typical violent acts or the calculation of a determined number of typical actions against each of the affected persons.”

“The key lies in the identification of a lasting effect derived from the creation of a, as specified in ruling 556/2020, 'hellish and unbreathable environment that will involve coexistence', from acts of violence or objectification directed at time 'on the same or different taxpayers from those provided for in the precept', even making it indifferent that some of such acts have already been prosecuted”, he notes.