The Madrid Provincial Prosecutor's Office has issued a partial pardon for María Sevilla, who is serving a sentence of two years and four months in prison for the crime of child abduction. The ex-president of Infancia Libre was convicted of hiding her son for more than a year and a half and prevented him from being with her father, who had custody since 2017.
The reasons given by the Public Ministry to reduce the custodial sentence and set it "exclusively" at two years in prison, is because it is the first crime for which Seville has been convicted and because, in addition, "it has shown to assume its responsibilities paying the amount established as civil liability in favor of the injured party, and voluntarily entering the compliance center, thus being subject to judicial disposition, and so as not to harm the mother-child relationship with her daughter.”
However, the Prosecutor's Office argued that it does not appreciate María Sevilla's repentance, "in the sense of express and clear acknowledgment", in relation to the facts subject to the sentence, and the damages caused to the minor and his father, "by depriving them of of the possibility of relaxing for a long time”.
From this perspective, the Prosecutor's Office raised its opposition to the granting of a full pardon for María Sevilla, because "her contumacy in preventing the relationship between father and son, and in doing the judicial resolutions issued that forced her to facilitate and reestablish said relationship, results deserving of punishment”.
In this sense, it adds that the penalties imposed are those legally provided for these cases, "and have been motivated and justified in their duration by the judicial authorities, without any disproportion between the acts punished and the punitive consequences established".
Even so, "the strict observance of the custodial sentence imposed could have a serious consequence on mother-child relationships with respect to the other daughter of the prisoner, which could have a negative impact on her affective-emotional development."
Regarding the sentence of deprivation of parental authority for a period of four years, because "it is the minimum applicable to the present case", while at the same time it considers it adequate "insofar as when the fulfillment of the same ends, the minor will already be older than age".
Finally, it affirms that there are no reasons of equity or public utility that could justify the granting of a full pardon both for reasons of special prevention, "while serving the sentence aims to restore social peace shaken by the commission of a crime, purpose pursued by any democratic penal system”, as well as for reasons of general prevention, “to avoid a public feeling of impunity that alienates the commission of new crimes”.
On this issue he adds: "Especially when as a result of these events and others like them, because in civil society they are encouraging campaigns such as the so-called "I would do it too", echoed by the press, and which seem to promote actions Similar". Hence, it pronounces in favor of a partial pardon "with maintenance of the rest of the provision of the final judgment on the day it was issued."
