Recently the news has become known that the Fiscalía requests for Vito Quiles the penalty of two years of prison, as well as two years of disqualification for the exercise of the profession of journalist.
The reason why these penalties are of interest lies in that, on March 20, 2024, during a demonstration in Madrid, a woman with a 75% intellectual disability was interviewed by Vito Quiles. Said interview was disseminated in publications on the social network X with an alleged purpose of disparagement linked to her disability and to the political ideas attributed to her.
This publication led to a massive exposure of the alleged victim on social media and provoked numerous humiliating comments from third parties, which, according to the Prosecutor's Office, caused her feelings of humiliation and unease, undermining her dignity.
For these facts, the Prosecutor's Office's brief requests that the journalist be convicted for a crime committed on the occasion of the exercise of fundamental rights and public freedoms recognized in the Constitution, in its modality of injury to the dignity of persons, foreseen and punishable under article 510.2.a) and 3 of the Penal Code, as well as for a crime against moral integrity under article 173.1 of the same legal text.
It is necessary to take into account what are the elements that must concur for a person to be convicted of a crime against dignity. Although the work of journalists is protected by the right to freedom of expression, said right has as its limit the affectation of people's dignity; that is, one's freedom ends when its exercise negatively affects the rights of others. And, apparently, this is what could have happened in the present case, this being the question that will be debated in the trial, always under the premise of the presumption of innocence until a firm conviction is handed down.
What are the elements that must concur for a conviction to occur for a crime against the dignity of the person?
-
Passive subject: protected group or individual person due to their belonging to a group.
Jurisprudence insists that not just any social group can be a victim of article 510 of the Penal Code; it must be one of the vulnerable groups contemplated by the norm. It is also admitted that the conduct may be directed against a specific person, provided that the attack responds to their connection with the protected group.
In the present case, the alleged victim is a woman with a recognized disability of 75% and who, furthermore, had a judicially agreed curatorship, that is, a court had already established that she needed support measures for her daily activities. Likewise, due to her way of speaking, anyone could foresee the existence of said disability.
Therefore, we apparently find ourselves before a person belonging to the group of “people with disabilities”. -
Typical conduct: humiliation, contempt or discredit.
The Penal Code requires that, for there to be an injury to dignity, humiliating, contemptuous or discrediting actions must have occurred. Conduct with sufficient entity to produce a real affectation of dignity is required.
In the present case, not only was the lady interviewed despite her evident condition, but said interview was disseminated on social media under the slogan: “#URGENT. They attack me in the demonstration against Ayuso in Genoa, threaten to kill her and even celebrate her abortion. Let all of Spain know the left. Maximum dissemination”. -
Intent to assault or assumption of the humiliating nature.
For a conviction for this crime, there must be an intent to assault or, at least, the acceptance of the humiliating nature of the conduct. In the present case, both the tone of the message with which the interview is published and the medium used could lead to the presumption of such intent, although this issue will have to be assessed in court. -
Sufficient gravity: effective injury to dignity and context analysis.
Another decisive requirement is gravity. The conduct must have sufficient entity to genuinely affect the dignity of the person or the group.
The interview was published on an account with hundreds of thousands of followers, which allowed for anticipating wide dissemination. In fact, the video reached millions of views and generated numerous offensive comments towards the alleged victim, such as: “The graphic proof that fentanyl has arrived in Madrid”, “The worst part is that these people can vote” or “It's hard for them to speak”. These elements could be relevant to assess the intensity of the impact.
- Projection of risk for coexistence.
The Supreme Court has pointed out that article 510 of the Penal Code falls within the category of danger crimes, so it is not necessary to prove that the message has provoked concrete violent acts. However, the conduct must be apt to generate a climate of hostility, discrimination or violence contrary to coexistence.
In this case, the appearance of numerous offensive messages by third parties could be an indication to take into account, without prejudice to the corresponding judicial assessment. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor's Office also charges a crime against moral integrity, as the conduct could also fit into this criminal offense type. Therefore, a concurrence of norms is raised, which would imply that, in case of conviction, only one of the two criminal offense types would be applied.
In conclusion, not everything is valid to disseminate a certain ideological vision, especially when this may imply the exposure or instrumentalization of people belonging to vulnerable groups. In any case, it will be the competent judicial body that determines the proven facts and the eventual criminal responsibility, always respecting the presumption of innocence.
