Understand that this part of the body belongs to the woman’s privacy and can only be visible “at her own request”.
MADRID, July 28 (EUROPA PRESS) –
The Supreme Court (TS) has reversed an acquittal and fined a man for disclosing secrets, a crime he committed by sending without consent a photo of his ex-girlfriend partially naked with his chest bare, a more than sufficient condition. to put the judges on trial for violating their privacy.
“Although the nudity corresponds only to the upper body and not the entire body, the protected legal interest is compromised”, i.e. “an attack on the complainant’s privacy,” the criminal division of the Supreme Court assured in a judgment collected by Europe Press.
With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittal agreed by the Oviedo Provincial Court, which had reached an agreement with the man. Thus, the TS restores the judgment of the Criminal Court No. 4 of Oviedo, which punished him with the payment of a fine of 2,168 euros and compensation of 500 euros to the woman, as well as being unable to communicate less than 500 meters or to approach him from her in two years.
The provincial court declared the man innocent as the photo sent was not serious enough to affect the woman’s privacy as the only part that appeared bare was the breast. “What is really important, however, is that nudity is a clear expression of personal intimacy,” the Supreme Court said.
AN INTIMATE PART
Denounced and complainant were a couple for almost two years. One day in December 2017, a few months after they both ended their relationship, the man sent his ex-partner’s bare-chested photo to a friend for her to send to him to “criticize his weight.” The convict had this picture on his mobile phone because the complainant had sent it to him on an appointment.
Judge and rapporteur Julián Sánchez Melgar, who welcomes an “underestimation of privacy” in the Oviedo court’s acquittal order, points out in this judgment of July 11 that “the woman’s breasts are parts that touch the intimate sphere of it, visible only by her own will, if that were her wish”, a circumstance “which in this case was not”.
The woman was the one who took and sent the photo “of explicit sexual expression and relative to the victim’s intimacy” when they were a couple. In this regard, the Supreme points out that it doesn’t matter who was the author of the image, whether he or she.
Two of the five Supreme Court justices, Antonio del Moral and Javier Hernández, have withdrawn from the majority opinion to issue a private report, emphasizing that it was the applicant who provided and mentioned the photograph to her then-boyfriend that the distribution of the image was limited to one person, who was her friend.
In short, the dissenting judges believe that sending the intimate photo of someone who “voluntarily” provided that snap to a third party is outside of revealing secrets but could be a crime against moral integrity.