The Treatment of Gender Violence in the Spanish Administration of Justice: Implementation and Effectiveness of the Organic Act 1/2004, on Integral Protection Measures Against Gender Violence

Abstract

The objective of this article is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the successive legal reforms on gender
violence including the Spanish Ley Orgánica 1/2004, of 28 December, on Integral Protection Measures Against
Gender Violence. A perspective of 15 years from the passing of the LO 1/2004 will assess the progress of its
implementation, in particular, its effectiveness in the fight against gender violence. More specifically, the paper will
address the evolution of data related to the treatment of gender violence in the Administration of Justice from a
comprehensive approach that will integrate both judicial decisions and the activity of the various organizations and
people that work in the implementation of the law in this area.

Keywords: gender violence, protection of victims, effectiveness of legal reforms, women rights

Full text

US-China Law Review, June 2019, Vol.16, No. 6, 237-257
doi:10.17265/1548-6605/2019.06.003

The Treatment of Gender Violence in the Spanish
Administration of Justice: Implementation and Effectiveness of
the Organic Act 1/2004, on Integral Protection Measures
Against Gender Violence
Manuel Calvo-García
University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

The objective of this article is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the successive legal reforms on gender
violence including the Spanish Ley Orgánica 1/2004, of 28 December, on Integral Protection Measures Against
Gender Violence. A perspective of 15 years from the passing of the LO 1/2004 will assess the progress of its
implementation, in particular, its effectiveness in the fight against gender violence. More specifically, the paper will
address the evolution of data related to the treatment of gender violence in the Administration of Justice from a
comprehensive approach that will integrate both judicial decisions and the activity of the various organizations and
people that work in the implementation of the law in this area.
Keywords: gender violence, protection of victims, effectiveness of legal reforms, women rights
The Spanish Organic Act 1/2004, of 28 December, on Integral Protection Measures Against Gender
Violence, is, without doubt, the reform that has had the greatest impact in the fight the violence exercised
against women in Spain. This Act concluded the reforms that were started in Spain in 1999, consolidated the
path set out by the Act 27/2003, of 31 July, on the Regulatory Order of Protection for Victims of Domestic
Violence, and shifted the focus of legal intervention from family violence to gender-based violence1. In addition,
this Act incorporates primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention objectives geared towards eradicating
gender-based violence for the first time. Despite all of this, the intervention against gender-based violence still
continues to have a clear penal judicial dimension with this Act.
 Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the Project DER2014-55400-R (The Treatment of Gender Violence in the
Administration of Justice: Implementation and Effectiveness of OA 1/2004). Funded also by the Government of Aragon
(Reference Group “Laboratory of Legal Sociology” (S09_17R) and co-financed with Feder 2014-2020 “Building Europe from
Aragon”.
Manuel Calvo-García, PhD, professor, Department of Criminal Law and Legal Philosophy, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza,
Spain.
1 Art. 1.1 of the Spanish Organic Act 1/2004 stated that its purpose was to: “take action against violence which, as a
manifestation of discrimination, inequality and relations in which men hold power over women, is exerted over women by those
who are or who have been their spouse or partner, or those who are or who have been linked to them through similar, equivalent
relationships, even if not co-habiting”. We have already seen the establishment of “comprehensive protective measures with the
aim of preventing, punishing and eradicating this form of violence and providing assistance to women, their minor children and
minors under their protection, guardianship or custody who have been victims of this type of violence”.
DAVID PUBLISHING
D

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

238
With regards to this issue, the Act constitutes a fundamental shift in terms of how gender-based violence is
treated within the Spanish Administration of Justice. First of all, the Courts of Violence Against Women
(Spanish: Juzgados de Violencia contra la Mujer) were created as a fundamental means of improving the
judicial protection of victims of gender-based violence, and ensuring coordination in terms of their overall
protection and security. These legal bodies are Specialized Courts created based on the Spanish Magistrates
Courts (JI, Spanish: Juzgados de Instrucción), i.e., they are criminal jurisdictional bodies, but they will hold
both criminal and civil power of jurisdiction. The Courts of Violence Against Women will take the relevant
protective measures in cases where there is evidence of criminal actions and an objective risk to the victim. As
previously mentioned, these measures may relate to criminal or civil proceedings. They may also take other
social or labour-related measures for the purpose of providing comprehensive protection and security to victims
of gender-based violence. In parallel with these, the Criminal Courts (JP, Spanish: Juzgados de lo Penal) and
the Provincial Courts (AP, Spanish: Audiencias Provinciales) are also specialised exclusively in acquiring
knowledge of the issues relating to violence against women.
By looking back over the 15 years since the Spanish Organic Act 1/2004 came into effect, we can assess
the practical legal and institutional changes to intervention mechanisms designed to eradicate and prevent
gender-based violence in Spain. In more concrete terms, the effectiveness of the main reforms introduced shall
be evaluated, analysing the implementation of the Act’s key aspects into the Spanish Administration of Justice.
To this end, data have been collected from secondary sources between 2006 and 20162, firstly analysing the
gender violence accusations or complaints (Spanish: denuncias), secondly the measures taken to protect victims,
and thirdly, the decisions made by legal bodies in application of this Act.
Accusations of Gender Violence
The data recorded since 2007 show the contrast between the increase in accusations within the first few
years that the Organic Act 1/2004 was in effect, probably a result of greater “visibility” with regards to
gender-based violence in Spain, and a clear decrease in the number of accusations from 2009 onwards. This is a
trend which adjusts from 2014 onwards, with an increase in accusations that begins to get quite major from
2016 onwards (see Figure 1).
If we analyse Figure 1 more closely, it is evident that there is a clearly decreasing trend line from 2008 to
2013. Even so, in 2013, there were an average number of around 125,000 accusations, which is much higher
than the two years before the OA 1/2004 (Spanish Organic Act 1/2004, of 28 December, on Integral Protection
Measures Against Gender Violence) was passed. That aside, the current figures are clearly above even those
from 2007-2008, the years in which there was a significant increase as a result of the new legislation coming
into effect. In more concrete terms, the slight upturn in 2014 and 2015 turns into a significant increase in
2016-2017, which can be seen clearly in Figure 1. From the lowest point (124,894 in 2013), the figures went up
to 142,893 in 2016 and 166,260 in 2017, which forces us to rule out the theory that has been heard repeatedly
regarding the decrease in accusations since the Act was passed.
2 With regards to their implementation in the justice system, the Spanish Organic Act 1/2004 came into effect six months after its
publication, in June 2005. As a result, the first year for which there is complete data is 2006.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

239
Figure 1. Accusations after OA 1/2004 came into effect (years 2007-2017).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Spanish Women’s Institute,
http://www.inmujer.es/estadisticasweb/10_Violencia/10_3_AmbitoJudicial/w851.xls.
The question that needs to be asked is whether the effectiveness of the Act, demonstrated by the increase
in accusations, also translates into effectiveness when it comes to proving that gender violence is a social
problem and not just a personal problem. To do so, we need to disaggregate the data regarding the origin of the
accusations or reports (see Table 1).
Table 1
Origin of Accusations or Reports (Years 2007-2017)
Reported
directly by
the victim in
the Court
Reported
directly by
relatives in
the Court
Police
statement
with
accusation
by the
victim
Police
statement
with
accusation
by relatives
Police
statement
through
direct
intervention
Report of
injuries
Support
service and
third parties
in general
Total
accusations
2007 N 14,166 463 83,601 964 13,072 13,321 706 126,293
% 11.2 0.4 66.2 0.8 10.4 10.5 0.6 100
2008 N 13,672 869 90,724 1,606 17,576 16,528 1,150 142,125
% 9.6 0.6 63.8 1.1 12.4 11.6 0.8 100
2009 N 10,872 451 87,635 1,436 17,445 16,138 1,563 135,540
% 8.0 0.3 64.7 1.1 12.9 11.9 1.2 100
2010 N 11,158 487 86,760 1,697 18,137 14,640 1,226 134,105
% 8.3 0.4 64.7 1.3 13.5 10.9 0.9 100
2011 N 12,082 450 83,693 1,092 19,633 15,290 1,762 134,002
% 9.0 0.3 62.5 0.8 14.7 11.4 1.3 100
2012 N 10,495 435 82,127 1,189 17,372 14,743 2,182 128,543
% 8.2 0.3 63.9 0.9 13.5 11.5 1.7 100
2013 N 12,270 625 75,767 1,247 18,222 14,363 2,400 124,894
% 9.8 0.5 60.7 1.0 14.6 11.5 1.9 100
2014 N 9,769 651 78,758 1,421 18,984 15,029 2,130 126,742
% 7.7 0.5 62.1 1.1 15.0 11.9 1.7 100

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

240
(Table 1 continued)
Reported
directly by
the victim in
the Court
Reported
directly by
relatives in
the Court
Police statement
with accusation
by the victim
Police
statement
with
accusation
by relatives
Police
statement
through direct
intervention
Report of
injuries
Support
service and
third parties
in general
Total
accusations
2015 N 5,238 1,323 83,848 1,595 20,131 14,575 2,483 129,193
% 4.1 1.0 64.9 1.2 15.6 11.3 1.9 100
2016 N 4,607 375 94,192 1,685 23,622 14,501 3,911 142,893
% 3.2 0.3 65.9 1.2 16.5 10.1 2.7 100
2017 N 5,990 444 108,945 2,957 25,600 16,192 6,132 166,260
% 3.6 0.3 65.5 1.8 15.4 9.7 3.7 100
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Spanish Women’s Institute,
http://www.inmujer.es/estadisticasweb/10_Violencia/10_3_AmbitoJudicial/w851.xls.
If we refine the analysis of this data regarding the origins of accusations or reports, it must be noted first
and foremost that the police statement with accusation by the victim is the main cause for proceedings being
initiated; it is always above 60%, from 66.2% in 2007 to 65.9% in 2016, or 65.5% in 2017. The lowest it
decreases to is 60.7% in 2007. Accusations reported directly by the victim or relatives are also a significant
proportion, with a slightly decreasing trend (from figures above 11.5% in 2007, down to 3.9% in 2017).
In order to more clearly visualise the cases in which proceedings were initiated as a result of direct police
intervention, we can refer to the figures for reports of injuries or communications provided by the support
services and third parties in general in Figure 2. Here, we can clearly see an increasing trend in cases where
proceedings were initiated as a result of direct police intervention and accusations by support services and third
parties in general. This upward trend is the result of going respectively from around 10.4% in 2007, up to
between 15.4% in 2017 and 16.5% in 2016, in the case of a police statement through direct intervention; and, in
the case of accusations by support services and third parties in general, these have increased little by little from
negligible figures, 0.6% in 2007, to 3.7% in 2017. In other words, accusations by support services and third
parties in general have increased from 706 to 6,132 in 2017. This is a small increase in relative terms, but it is
significant (although not enough) in terms of what it implies with regards to how well the early detection
mechanisms are working and the involvement of society in the fight against gender violence.
One of the objectives of the OA 1/2004 was to promote awareness of gender violence as a social problem
and not a personal problem for the victim, which is why progress was made in primary and secondary
prevention measures, as well as tertiary prevention measures, which have been a particular focus up to this
point. In addition, with a view to achieving real, comprehensive protection and security for the victims, there
has been steady progress in the promotion of early detection mechanisms. However, in view of the results
shown by the data obtained, it is clear that despite the timid progress made, these objectives have not yet been
met in the first decade of the new legislation’s application.
Judicial Measures of Victim Protection and Security
Consistent legal protective measures in the form of restraining orders and prohibiting communication with
the victim were introduced in 1999 in order to mitigate the deficiencies of a system which was accumulating a
backlog of delays of over a year in responding to accusations made by the victim. In this context, such
protective measures could be considered merely palliative, but they represented a significant point of

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

241
innovation and opened the door for developing measures geared towards comprehensive protection of victims,
although these never quite managed to be fully operational at that time.
Figure 2. Initiation of proceedings by police statements through direct intervention, reports of injuries and by support
services and/or third parties in general (years 2007-2017).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Spanish Women’s Institute,
http://www.inmujer.es/estadisticasweb/10_Violencia/10_3_AmbitoJudicial/w851.xls.
Protection measures for the victim improved considerably as a result of the legal reforms brought in 2003,
particularly when the “Protection Order (PO)” (Spanish Act 27/2003 of 31 July) came into force. However, the
substantial change in applying the protective measures was determined when the Organic Act 1/2004 of 28
December was passed: Integral Protection Measures Against Gender Violence. As already mentioned in the
introduction, once the Integral Act came into effect, the Courts for Violence Against Women were given both
judicial and civil powers and implemented protective measures of both types3.
The implementation of these judicial protective measures increased considerable between 2005 and 2008.
However, in the years that followed, there was a marked decrease in the implementation of these protective
measures, although it appears that in 2016, this downward trend was starting to change with a slight increase.
With this in mind, it is also worth mentioning the low proportion of civil protective measures compared to the
judicial measures, the former making up barely a quarter of these.
Table 2 and Figure 3 show this development. In particular, it is clear that there is a decreasing trend in
protective measures implemented from 2010 onwards, until the figures start to stabilise from 2014, with a small
upturn in 2016. Admittedly, the number of measures implemented is still significantly higher than the nominal
amount of measures taken before these reforms. This decrease is mostly caused by the fact that fewer protective
measures were taken based on requests for protection orders, although a slight decrease was also observed in
legal measures taken by the Courts of Violence Against Women (see Table 2)4.
3
A decision to implement a Protection Order may be made by the Magistrate for Violence Against Women, or by the Judge on
Duty in accordance with the terms of Article 62 of OA 1/2004.
4
In addition to measures derived from Protection Orders, which may be imposed at the request of the victim or the courts, Art.
544b of LECrim allows the Judge to impose legal protective measures.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

242
Table 2
Penal and Civil Protective Measures Implemented by Courts of Violence Against Women, via A Protection
Order (Po) and via Other Rulings (Years 2006-2016).
Penal Civil
With PO Without PO Total penal protect
measures With PO Without PO Total civil protect
measures
2006 62,027 21,317 83,344 17,600 678 18,278
2008 70,955 21,916 92,871 22,318 1,306 23,624
2010 58,045 20,309 78,354 19,373 903 20,276
2012 47,001 19,705 66,706 15,505 669 16,174
2014 44,346 14,705 59,051 13,680 845 14,525
2016 41,581 19,277 60,858 15,363 1,122 16,485
Notes. Each ruling may incorporate more than one measure.
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Figure 3. Judicial and civil protective measures implemented by Courts of Violence Against Women (years
2006-2016).
Note. Each ruling may incorporate more than one measure.
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
With regards to the civil measures, the first thing to highlight is the low proportion of civil protective
measures compared to penal measures, with the former making up barely a quarter of these. It is also worth
noting that, although it may be logical, there is a low number of legally imposed civil measures (see Table 4).
In fact, the trends of civil protective measures run parallel to the judicial measures, although due to their
smaller numbers, their inflections are not quite so pronounced (see Figure 3). The most common measures are
the provision of food maintenance and housing allocation. Much lower figures are seen in the suspension of
visiting arrangements and the suspension of guardianship and custody. The suspension of parental powers
continues to be implemented in very few cases as a protective measure, although it may be an additional
punishment. Another point to highlight is the low number of protection measures for minors5 (see Table 4).
5
These figures may be explained by the fact that until the reform in 2015, as amended by the Organic Act 8/2015 of 22 July,
Amendment to the protection system for infants and adolescents, children were not visibly considered as victims of gender
violence. After this reform, it was highlighted that they could be both direct and indirect victims.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

243
Table 3
Penal Protective Measures Implemented by Courts of Violence Against Women, via A Protection Order and via
Other Rulings (2006-2016)
Year 2006 Year 2008 Year 2010 Year 2012 Year 2014 Year 2016
Custodial sentence POa 1,779 1,974 1,342 904 795 614
MC
b
1,421 1,126 1,010 832 568 618
Leaving residence PO 5,153 4,896 3,955 2,905 2,468 2,206
MC 1,217 1,565 1,191 1,172 1,021 1,098
Restraining order PO 23,172 26,260 20,944 17,243 16,918 16,388
MC 6,445 7,349 6,790 6,947 5,182 7,098
Prohibition of communication PO 21,133 25,673 20,917 17,212 16,798 16,050
MC 6,072 6,928 6,784 6,852 4,930 6,914
Prohibited from returning to
scene of the crime
PO 5,034 5,362 3,965 3,228 2,217 1,917
MC 2,449 2,074 1,558 1,348 1,229 1,329
Suspended from using or
possessing weapons
PO 4,090 4,759 4,647 3,803 3,559 3,002
MC 1,737 1,644 1,531 1,486 926 1,057
Other judicial measures PO 1,666 2,031 2,275 1,706 1,591 1,404
MC 1,976 1,230 1,445 1,068 849 1,163
Total PO 62,027 70,955 58,045 47,001 44,346 41,581
MC 21,317 21,916 20,309 19,705 14,705 19,277
Notes. a Protective measure requested by the victim via a Protection Order; b Protective measure legally imposed by a judicial
body.
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
With this in mind, focusing once more on the judicial protective measures, Table 3 shows how these have
been diversified. In 2016, the most significant measures in quantitative terms are still the so-called restraining
order measures (37.4%) and the prohibition of communication (37.4%). Lower percentages can be seen in
measures, such as leaving residence (5.9%), prohibited from returning to scene of the crime (5.8%), and other
judicial protective measures (4.1%). Custodial sentence measures, on the other hand, only constitute 2.3%6.
Table 4
Civil Protective Measures Based on Protection Orders and Other Protective Measures for Safety and
Protection (2006-2016)
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Housing allocation POa 5,458 6,606 5,653 4,266 3,972 4,411
MC
b
219 413 299 231 275 278
Transfer use of family home PO 147 171 165 95 64 47
MC 14 13 4 2 1 12
Suspension of visiting arrangements PO 1,056 1,047 748 653 565 948
MC 45 64 45 57 58 87
Suspension of parental powers PO 101 85 76 76 56 110
MC 18 4 3 3 6 11
6 Detention and, where applicable, provisional detention may be imposed if the facts presented indicate an offence, regardless of
the length of the sentence being imposed.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

244
(Table 4 continued)
Suspension of guardianship and
custody
PO 1,993 2,371 1,798 1,498 1,078
MC 55 143 61 78 55
Food maintenance provision PO 5,711 7,311 6,550 5,137 4,703
MC 242 386 301 199 263
Protection of a minor PO 112 170 283 182 240
MC 6 61 21 9 35
Other civil measures PO 3,022 4,557 4,100 3,598 3,002
MC 79 222 169 90 152
Total PO 17,600 22,318 19,373 15,505 13,680
MC 678 1,306 903 669 845
Notes. a Protective measure requested by the victim via a Protection Order; b Protective measure legally imposed by a judicial
body.
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Once we have presented the array of agreed protection measures, both judicial and civil, we need to go
back to the aforementioned question, i.e., after a considerable increase in the first few years after the legislation
regarding the protection order was introduced, and in the first years of the OA 1/2004 being applied, how could
the implementation of protective measures undergo such a significant decline (see Figure 4).
In principle, one might think that in accordance with the declining trend of data regarding accusations, the
protection orders requested would also be fewer, and this would explain the decreasing figures with regards to
measures being implemented. This is partially the case, as also shown in Figure 4; however, the decreasing
trend is more pronounced due to the contrast between the decrease in protective measures requested via
protection orders or agreed by the courts, and the increase in those that were refused or rejected. In fact, if we
analyse more closely, it becomes even clearer―as can be seen in Figure 4.
If we look at the analysis of Protection Orders, it is not just the requests which have declined, which is
immediately reflected in the number of Orders initiated, but the data also show variation in how the requested
Protection Orders have been resolved. In 2006, Protection Orders were not just requested, but also granted as a
general rule (Calvo-García, 2008). At the moment, as shown in Figure 5, we have gone from approved
Protection Orders being higher than 75% in 2006, to figures closer to 55% in 2014, slightly increasing to
approximately 62% in 2016. In general terms, it can be said that we are clearly facing a very pronounced
decreasing trend.
Taking a step back from our analysis, after the reforms of 2003 and 2004, the most significant measures in
qualitative terms are provisional detention and the measures of restraining orders and prohibition of
communication. These show a clearly decreasing trend in all cases. Here, we are referring to the two most
significant measures: custodial sentences and restraining orders which prevent the aggressor from coming
within a specified distance of the victim. The former were initially a fairly major factor, but have progressively
diminished quite considerably. Figure 6 clearly shows this decreasing trend, particularly with regards to
custodial sentences based on a Protection Order, but less so in cases where the sentence was legally imposed by
the Court as a protective measure.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

245
Figure 4. Development of protective measures initiated, implemented, refused or rejected (totals, 2006-2016).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Figure 5. Development of protection orders implemented and rejected (2006-2016).
Source: Own formulation based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the Judiciary,
http://www.poderjudicial.es/).

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

246
Figure 6. Development of custodial measures (2006-2016).
Notes. PO: Protective measure requested by the victim; MC: Protective measure legally imposed by a judicial body.
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
The same trend can be seen with regards to the restraining order measures, which decreased significantly
between the years 2008 and 2012, and which have remained fairly stable since the year 2012 (see Figure 7).
The linear trend, particularly with regards to restraining order measures requested in protection orders, is clear
in this respect.
Figure 7. Development of restraining order measures (2006-2014).
Notes. PO: Protective measure requested by the victim; MC: Protective measure legally imposed by a judicial body.
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

247
It is obvious that this data are related to the reduction in Protection Orders requested and to the fact that, as
already mentioned, they have also been rejected more often on average over the years since the Act came into
effect. In any case, the hypothesis that emerges from this data is that, little by little, it is becoming apparent that
the protection mechanisms put in place for women who are victims of gender violence are not being applied as
rigorously as before. Admittedly, other protection methods have been developed for victims based on social
action from public administrations. Social intervention aimed directly at protecting victims is a resource which
has undergone significant change over recent years. However, it cannot be ignored that there is a decline in
preventative protection for victims, particularly with regards to protection orders, which is why we come back
to the aforementioned question. The following section attempts to compare this data with the data derived from
the analysis of judicial rulings, in order to verify whether this point also reveals a decline in rigour when it
comes to applying the legal protection mechanisms put in place for victims as stipulated in OA 1/2004.
Analysis of Judicial Decisions Regarding Gender Violence
The treatment of gender violence in the Spanish Administration of Justice before the reforms in 2003 and,
in particular, the reform introduced by the Organic Act 1/2004, of 28 December, on Integral Protection
Measures Against Gender Violence, can undoubtedly be classified as dysfunctional and with a clear tendency
towards impunity for crimes of violence against women within the context of emotionally attached
relationships.
To begin with, until the aforementioned reforms came into effect, Misdemeanour Proceedings, i.e.,
proceedings for “minor” offences, were the main response from the criminal system in cases of gender violence,
with percentages higher than 76% (Calvo-García, 2004). When these proceedings led to a conviction, they
imposed a fine or a weekend’s imprisonment; in addition, in the latter case, these were not followed through
due to a lack of infrastructure. This situation was also exacerbated by the fact that acquittal was the norm in
these types of proceedings: acquittals constituted 72.3% versus 27.7% convictions (Calvo-García, 2004). This
gave rise to a situation which fostered the general social impression of impunity for aggressors.
With the reforms in 2003, the majority of abusive actions towards women were classed as an offence, and
this trend became more pronounced when the Organic Act 1/2004 was passed. In addition, when the reform to
the Criminal Code (CP) came into effect in 2015, the “misdemeanours” disappeared and they were replaced by
“minor offences”. These reforms have been clearly reflected in the Administration of Justice’s practices,
making it possible to verify the aforementioned tendency towards the decline in misdemeanours as a legal
response to gender violence. Indeed, before the reforms of 2003 and 2004, the proportion of cases judged as
misdemeanours was higher than 90%. From 2004 onwards, the percentages were practically reversed.
On the other hand, now the punishments are much more serious, with practically all acts of violence
against women being classified as an offence. As a result, the punishments given have increased. Convictions
for gender violence are graded depending on their severity and the type of action that may cause the aggressor
to be considered the responsible for homicide, miscarriage, injuries, harm to a foetus, crimes against freedom,
crimes against moral integrity, against sexual freedom or identity, or any other crime committed with violence
or intimidation within the context of gender violence. Since the reforms in 2003 and 2004, practically all cases
of physical and psychological aggression have been punished with prison sentences, which are graded

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

248
depending on the severity of the offence7.
Based on the above, we are facing a situation of significant changes with regards to factors that it was not
wise to include in the letter of the Act. As a result, we are going to revise the application of the legislation on
gender violence, consolidated in OA 1/2004, in the practices of competent jurisdictional bodies for issues of
gender violence: the Violence Against Women Courts (JVM), Criminal Courts, and Provincial Courts,
respectively.
Violence Against Women Courts
In cases of rulings by the Violence Against Women Courts8, after the OA 1/2004 came into effect, an
average of around 80% of cases resulted in convictions. This constitutes a radical change with regards to the
aforementioned situation.
However, this figure now needs to be qualified, as around 60% of the convictions are for offences
punished by the Violence Against Women Courts in a negotiated process, i.e., cases in which the aggressor
pleads guilty and accepts the punishment set for the accusations, in which the sentence is always a conviction.
In Minor Offences Proceedings, carried out by these authorities until 2015, in which the decision was open,
acquittals varied between 48% and 58%. A slight increasing trend can be detected in acquittals in recent years
(see Figure 8). In any case, we are in a situation which differs radically from that which was established after
the reforms of 1999 where, in addition to prosecuting the majority of cases as misdemeanours, acquittals were
the norm in these types of proceedings, rising to 72.3% (Calvo-García, 2004). After the OA 1/2004 came into
effect, the percentage of acquittals has varied between 18% and 25%.
There is still a question which needs to be considered. In general, the statistics on percentages of
convictions and acquittals do not include data on case dismissals9; but if we include this data, it changes the
overall picture significantly. Table 5 clearly shows that the general relationship between convictions and
acquittals is largely dependent on the number dismissals, as the number of proceedings being dismissed in
Violence Against Women Courts is greater than the number of sentences (around 74/26% in recent years),
which clearly implies a significant reduction in relation to convictions. If we take this data into consideration,
the number of cases which resulted in a conviction before these authorities is barely 20% in recent years.
7 Cases of murder in the context of gender violence, prosecuted by the Provincial Courts and trialled by jury, are punished with
sentences of around 20 years in prison. Injuries which damage the physical integrity, or physical or mental health of the victim of
gender violence are punished with a prison sentence of around five years, in accordance with the outcome or the risk produced
(147.1, 148, 4, CP). The basic offence of abuse (causing physical harm or minor injuries) in the context of gender violence is
punished by a prison sentence of six months to a year, or with community service work for 31 to 80 days (153.1 CP). Minor
threats in the context of gender violence are punished with a prison sentence of six months to one year, or with community service
work for 31 to 80 days and the corresponding additional punishments (171, 4 CP) Similarly, cases of minor coercion to the person
who is or was the offender’s wife, or a woman who is or has been associated with him in a similar emotional relationship, even if
not co-habiting, shall be punished with a prison sentence of six months to one year, with community service work for 31 to 80
days 172.2 CP.
8 The Courts for Violence Against Women were responsible for knowledge and rulings of Misdemeanour Proceedings, which
became minor offences of gender violence from 2015 (Art. 14.1 LECrim), which take place in accordance with the “Proceedings
for minor offences” (Articles 962 and subsq. of LECrim). They are also responsible for the instruction of processes to demand
criminal accountability for offences relating to homicide, miscarriage, injuries, harm to a foetus, crimes against freedom, crimes
against moral integrity, against sexual freedom or identity, or any other offence within the context of gender violence (Art. 14.5
LECrim).
9 Provisional dismissals of proceedings dictate the “stoppage or suspension of proceedings” when, according to the judicial body,
there is reasonable doubt over the criminal offence itself due to a lack of evidence, or because it is not possible to accuse a certain
person as an aggressor in the case of gender violence being heard. Free dismissals involve definitively terminating the hearing of
the case and the case file. According to these definitions, strictly speaking, only free or definitive dismissals should be comparable
to acquittals.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

249
This implies a significant change in perspective, which forces us to stop and take a look at the analysis of
dismissals.
Figure 8. Rulings in criminal sentencing by Courts of Violence Against Women (2006-2014).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Table 5
Rulings and Dismissals (2006-2016)
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Rulings 19,914 19,926 19,401 18,936 18,858 19,241
42.9% 32.7% 30.0% 25.6% 27.2% 24.8%
Provisional dismissals 26,555 41,069 45,353 49,222 45,647 53,420
57.2% 67.3% 70.0% 66.5% 65.9% 68.9%
Free dismissals - - - 5,866 4,794 4,879
0% 0% 0% 7.9% 6.9% 6.3%
Total 46,469 60,995 64,754 74,024 69,299 77,540
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Table 5 shows data on the percentages of rulings and dismissals. If we look at the figures from 2012 to
2016, taking into account free dismissals and provisional dismissals, there were a total of 55,088 dismissals in
2012, 50,441 in 2014, and 58,299 in 2016. These are very high numbers which require a more detailed level of
specific research; however, it is worth noting to begin with that in those years, 128,543, 126,742, and 142,893
accusations were made respectively, meaning that approximately 40% of proceedings ended up being dismissed
provisionally or definitively.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

250
Figure 9. Rulings in courts of violence against women (years 2012-2014).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
The question is obvious: Are not the figures for provisional dismissals a little on the high side? Provisional
dismissals in particular are usually caused by a lack of evidence or difficulty in identifying the perpetrator, and
thought must also be given to the lack of cooperation from victims, even though offences of gender violence
are punishable by law in Spanish legislation10.
So, although a simple quantitative analysis is not sufficient to reach any definitive conclusions, it does
force us to qualify relevant aspects relating to the percentage of convictions in Courts of Violence Against
Women. As shown in Figure 9, this percentage decreases radically down to around 20% on average in the years
2012-2016. Obviously, many of the cases instructed by the Courts of Violence Against Women are escalated to
competent legal bodies (Criminal Courts and AP), and these are, on the one hand, more serious offences, and
on the other hand, they are cases for which no settlement is reached, meaning that it is important to also analyse
what legal decisions are made by Criminal Courts as well as Provincial Courts.
As a conclusion to the analysis of the decisions made by Courts of Violence Against Women, it must be
10 This issue requires additional qualitative research which cannot be included in this paper. For the moment, it is sufficient to
provide a couple of opinions on the subject with extracts from discussion groups dated ... (DG 1) and ... (DG 2). In the words of a
lawyer: “These figures make me think that the majority are women who make the accusation ... because it’s got to the point where
they exploit it. They go to the police station, have this act of bravery that society expects of them, make the accusation, and then
the next day, when all the chaos that lies ahead of them starts, they withdraw the accusation. They take advantage of their right to
remain silent and it gets archived. There is a provisional dismissal, and it doesn’t go any further than that. They say, ‘but will he
go to prison?’, ‘but will that happen to him?’, ‘what will happen to my children?’, ‘where will I live?’, ‘I don’t have a job, how
will I eat, I don’t have any money, I don’t have anywhere to go, I’ve got no family’, ... The other day I had four in one morning”.
(DG 1) However, another lawyer notes that, “we would have fewer dismissals if the prosecutor’s training and awareness were
different. With or without injuries, however much a victim might not want to continue, I as a prosecutor and a guardian of the law
should continue. Then we wouldn’t see such high statistics for dismissals like those we see here” (DG 1). This is not easy from
the prosecutor’s point of view and based on the experience of forensic experts. In the words of a gender violence Prosecutor:
“When it comes in a police statement, and the woman doesn’t want anything to happen, and I can see that there are at least a few
injuries, and [...] if the police who went to the house [say] ‘when I arrived and opened the door, the woman showed signs of
having been hit, the man was very rattled and they told me this’, even if the woman doesn’t want me to, I have submitted an
accusation, and got a conviction. Because the police officer is a direct witness to how the woman looked; as for how the injuries
were caused, they’re an indirect witness, so that’s it ... you’re in criminal proceedings. But if there are no injuries.... If a woman
comes in and says ‘he threatened me’ and he says ‘no I didn’t’, and the woman goes to the Court and says ‘actually I want to stay
silent’, then...” (DG 2).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2012 2014 2016
TOTAL
CONVICTIONS
TOTALACQUITTALS
FREEDISMISSALS
PROVISIONAL
DISMISSALS

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

251
highlighted that the number of acquittals has declined considerably. However, not all cases that reach Violence
Against Women Courts result in convictions or are escalated for prosecution in Criminal Courts or Provincial
Courts. The analysis of dismissals has set us on the track that convictions are not the norm in JCM decisions,
contrary to what may be supposed from a simple superficial analysis of the sentences given by these authorities.
This aside, it is evident that the figures for acquittals and convictions in rulings by these authorities has clearly
been inverted. So, if this is, as we have said, also due largely to rulings for offences in which a settlement was
reached with Courts of Violence Against Women, we need to review how this affects rulings in Criminal Courts.
Criminal Courts
Before the reforms in 2003 and 2004, acquittals in Criminal Courts barely made up 13.1% of cases, with
86.9% of rulings being convictions; however, the explanation for this was clear: Only a very small percentage
of cases were prosecuted as offences―these were the most serious cases with the clearest evidence. The same
occurred in Provincial Courts, when comparing data from these authorities with data from Criminal Courts:
84.4% convictions versus 15.6% acquittals (Calvo-García, 2003; 2004).
The first thing that allows us to understand the data obtained in relation to the period of application of OA
1/2004 which we are analysing is that, after the law came into effect, the percentage of acquittals in Criminal
Courts, now specialised in the issues relating to violence against women, increased significantly11. In other
words, the percentage of convictions reduced considerably.
The first thing to note is that the number of sentences given in the period we are analysing underwent a
significant upward trend between 2006 and 2010, reaching a point of inflection from this year and going into a
major decline in the number of sentences given by Criminal Courts (see Table 6).
Table 6
Rulings in Criminal Sentencing by Criminal Courts on Matters of Gender Violence (2006-2016)
Convictions Acquittals Total rulings
2006 10,581 7,009 17,590
60.2% 39.8% 100%
2008 15,197 14,224 29,421
51.7% 48.3% 100%
2010 17,441 17,157 34,598
50.4% 49.6% 100%
2012 15,889 15,596 31,485
50.5% 49.5% 100%
2013 14,676 14,156 28,832
50.9% 49.1% 100%
2014 13,877 13,220 27,097
51.2% 48.8% 100%
2016 15,179 12,473 27,652
54.9% 45.1% 100%
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
11 Criminal Courts are responsible for prosecuting offences, the punishment for which is a custodial sentence that does not exceed
five years, and other offences with different types of punishments, regardless of their duration (Art. 14 LECrim). The proceedings
are conducted via a fast-track procedure or quick trial. With regards to what we are concerned with here, we are talking about
cases of gender violence that have been escalated by Courts of Violence Against Women to be resolved by the JP specialised in
gender violence.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

252
Figure 10. Rulings in criminal sentencing by criminal courts on matters of gender violence (2006-2016).
Source: Own formulation based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the Judiciary,
http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Now, analysing the relationship between convictions and acquittals in Table 6 and Figure 11, it can clearly
be seen that in the initial years that the new gender violence legislation was being applied, convictions were at
about 60%, with a clearly decreasing trend in the years that followed, down to percentages of around 50%.
Figures that are considerably different to the percentages before the reform noted above (86.9%), but taking
into account the high number of cases resolved in Courts of Violence Against Women through settlement by
the accused party and agreeing the punishment in accordance with the accusations.
Having established all of the above, if we analyse more closely, Table 7 allows us to verify that in reality,
the figure which is decreasing is convictions without mediated settlement. This means that the cases which
have tended to end in acquittals in recent years are the cases in which there is no mediated settlement. Although
this trend has not been alarmingly pronounced, the percentage variation is significant and the decrease in the
number of convictions without settlement compared to the number of convictions with settlement forces us to
highlight this fact.
Table 7
Convictions With Settlement and Without Settlement in Criminal Courts (2006-2016)
Conviction with settlement Conviction without settlement Total convictions
2006 4,532 6,149 10,681
42.4% 57.6% 100%
2008 6,063 9,134 15,197
39.9% 60.1% 100%
2010 7,196 9,206 16,402
43.9% 56.1% 100%
2012 7,013 8,876 15,889
44.1% 55.9% 100%
2013 6,916 7,760 14,676
47.1% 52.9% 100%

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

253
(Table 7 continued)
2014 6,741 7,136 13,877 2014 6,741 7,136
48.6% 51.4% 100% 48.6% 51.4%
2016 8,056 7,123 15,179 2016 8,056 7,123
53.1% 46.9% 100% 53.1% 46.9%
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
Table 7 clearly shows the downward trend in convictions without settlement. We can see a decrease from
60.1% in 200812 down to 51.4% in 2014 and 46.9% in 2016. One might think that this reduction could be
related to the decrease in the number of convictions and correlates with the number of rulings in general, which
would also be directly related to the number of proceedings initiated. However, the trends in both types of
rulings are clearly contrasting: The number of convictions with settlements has barely decreased at all
compared to the prolonged (although slight) decrease in rulings where there was no settlement.
This decrease in convictions without settlement is important and is a fact which will need to be analysed
more closely in future research. At the moment, the data we are looking at allow us to see that this trend
coincides with the initial application of the 2003 and 2004 reforms (Calvo-García, 2008), where it becomes
clear that there is a correlation between the overall picture created once the majority of acts of aggression were
treated as an offence, and those punished with much more serious prison sentences.
Provincial Courts and Trials by Jury
Finally, we are going to analyse the decisions made by Provincial Courts specialised in the issues relating
to violence13. These authorities judge the most serious cases of gender violence. The number of rulings made
by Provincial Courts is recorded in very small registers.
In the specialised AP departments, as can be seen in Table 8, the percentage of convictions in rulings made
in a single proceeding stays at around eighty percent (77.0/82.1%) In the equivalent figures from the period of
2000-2002, which we are taking as a reference for comparison purposes regarding the state of things before the
reforms, convictions reached a percentage of 84% (Calvo-García, 2004) in Provincial Courts.
These figures include data refer to Proceedings with a Jury, which gave 31 rulings in 2016, 30 or which
were convictions. This means that the general trend in Trials by Jury (TJ) is maintained, in which rulings were
already generally convictions, even before the reforms being analysed (Calvo-García, 2004).
It is definitive that in the most serious cases, the trends remain unchanging, perhaps because it relates to
cases in which the procedural and criminal rationale has not undergone as many changes. The specialisation is
clearly not a factor in the convictions and it does not appear to have been.
In addition, offences punished by Provincial Courts and Trials by Jury are punished with sentences of
around 20 years in prison for murders, and these are showing an increasing trend (Group of Experts in the
12 In 2010, the number of conviction without settlement was larger in raw numbers, but not in percentage terms. This data follow
the increase of rulings in the year 2010.
13 The first type of proceeding addressed by Provincial Courts (Provincial Courts) is for offences with a custodial sentence of
more than five years. The proceedings are conducted following an ordinary procedure (if the custodial sentence is greater than
nine years) or a fast-track procedure (if the custodial sentence is less than nine years but greater than five years). In cases requiring
a Provincial Court hearing, if the offence was assigned to Trial by Jury, it is heard by them and the ruling is given by them
(LECrim. Art. 14.4).

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

254
Research Committee against Domestic Violence and Gender Violence, 2016)14. We can conclude from this that
with regards to the most dramatic acts of gender violence, the rigour stipulated in the legislation is being
maintained.
Table 8
Rulings in a Single Proceeding in Specialist Criminal Departments of Provincial Courts (2006-2016)
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Convictions 133 290 322 248 290 230
82.1% 82.2% 80.9% 77.0% 81.0% 81.6%
Acquittals 29 63 76 74 68 52
17.9% 17.8% 19.1% 23.0% 19.0% 18.4%
Total rulings 162 353 398 322 358 282
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from the Gender Violence Research Committee CGPJ (General Council of the
Judiciary, http://www.poderjudicial.es/).
With regards to the resolution of appeals made by these authorities, if we analyse the rulings in 2016, the
ways in which these were resolved consisted mostly of dismissals (81.1%). A similar trend can be seen in both
the type of rulings for resolutions of appeals regarding sentences arising from fast-tracked proceedings
(offences prosecuted by Criminal Courts), as well as with regards to rulings for resolutions of appeals against
rulings relating to proceedings for misdemeanours and minor offences. Appeals resolved by the Provincial
Courts relate to rulings arising from fast-tracked proceedings (89.9%) and only one percent less relates to
appeals against rulings from Misdemeanour Proceedings (10.4%) (Violence Against Women in the Provincial
Courts, 2016).
Critical Conclusions
To recap what was covered in the last section, legal decisions regarding gender violence, we have seen
how convictions have reached significant percentages in Criminal Courts and Provincial Courts, but that they
are diluted in Courts of Violence Against Women with a high percentage of dismissals. This means that barely
20% of accusations result in a conviction. According to the CGPJ’s own data, we have taken into consideration,
in 2016 only 21.69% of accusations resulted in a conviction. In principle, this data contrast with the campaigns
to get women to report instances of violence. Admittedly, accusations are few and far between compared with
the percentage of women who experience gender violence in Spain, and in this sense, Spain is not an exception,
but it draws attention to the small percentage of these that result in convictions. Without resorting to demagogy,
because the reasons for this are varied and complex, it is important to note these figures and examine the
reasons surrounding them. From the point of view of the Administration of Justice and its functioning, this data
are to a large extent, related to the high percentage of dismissals. This is an issue, as already noted, needs to be
examined and solutions need to be put forward to prevent this situation.
With this in mind, it is clear that under the current legislation, the punishments imposed need to be serious.
Convictions for gender violence are graded depending on their severity and the type of action that may cause
the aggressor to be considered the responsible for homicide, injuries, abuse, coercion, threats, or breaching an
14 “In 2014, the average prison sentence for murder was approximately 18 years [...]. In 2015, the sentence had increased to 20
years and two days. In 7 cases of convictions for homicide, the custodial sentences varied between 15 years (1 sentence) and 10
years (1 sentence)”, see Group of Experts in the Research Committee against Domestic Violence and Gender Violence (2016).

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

255
imposed sentence or protective measures. Since the reforms in 2003 and 2004, practically all cases of physical
and psychological aggression have been punished with prison sentences, which are graded depending on the
severity of the offence. In addition, after the reform to the CP in 2015, as mentioned above, “misdemeanours”
were removed and turned into “minor offences” (see Point 10 above).
This forces us to consider that perhaps one of the hypotheses that has been discussed since the 2004
reform, which is that the increase in punishment severity may ultimately be giving rise to more acquittals in
legal decisions, or more lenient punishments being given, could potentially be confirmed in part. It is true that
the data we have available clearly shows that convictions are being made and that, in many cases, the prison
sentences stipulated in the CP are being imposed. However, we have also seen that there is less rigour in
imposing protective measures, and that criminal punishments are being diluted by settlements and dismissals.
There is also the high number of suspended punishments in cases of prison sentences given for gender violence.
With regards to this last piece of data, few convictions are made and in many cases, the punishment is
suspended or substituted. Figure 11 shows data regarding punishment suspensions and substitutions, and draws
attention to the significance of this factor with regards to gender violence offences. Around 60% of punishment
suspensions and substitutions relate to convictions for gender violence―a figure which is also increasing every
year. This data speak for itself, accentuating the impression that we have already noted, i.e., that we have
progressed to a situation of less rigour in punishment over the course of recent years.
Figure 11. Suspensions and substitutions for convictions (2016).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from Secretary General of Penitentiary Institutions (General Report 2016 [2017],
http://www.institucionpenitenciaria.es/).
This may be in the context of a substitution or a directly imposed punishment. The top punishment is
beginning to be Community Service (TBC, Spanish: Trabajos en Beneficio de la Comunidad), whether this is
as a substitution for imprisonment or directly imposed as a punishment in itself. Community Services has
become a punishment mechanism that is playing a progressively more important role in criminal punishment
for gender violence. Figure 12 shows, above all, how community service is being applied as a punishment,
whether directly or as a suspension of the imposed sentence, for road traffic offences and gender violence
offences. In 2016, more than 20,000 offenders completed community service as a punishment.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

256
Figure 12. Community services (2016).
Source: Preparing by the author based on data from Secretary General of Penitentiary Institutions (General Report 2016 [2017],
http://www.institucionpenitenciaria.es/).
The above statement should not be misinterpreted. This is not a rejection of alternative punishments to
prison. In many cases, there is sound justification for this which should not be brushed aside. Due to the limits
of this paper, we cannot go into this issue in greater depth. It is sufficient to note that in some cases, community
service may be a suitable punishment, but its steady increase also raises the issue that it could be representing
an option for offenders to elude prison sentences. If we combine this with the fact that punishments are not
being carried out optimally, and in many cases the agreements are not sufficient or are not fulfilled, then the
sense of impunity may begin to be re-imposed with regards to certain gender violence offences15.
Our position should also not be misinterpreted with regards to this point. We do not believe that police
intervention and criminal proceedings are enough to eradicate gender violence. It is clear that this is not
reasonable, but we should also ask ourselves whether we should dispense with it. Perhaps the response here
should also be negative. It is true that reformism in criminal proceedings and progress in punishment will not
definitively resolve the objectives aimed at eradicating gender violence. However, criminal law has a symbolic
power that we should not underestimate. The moral condemnation that inherently comes with progress in
criminalisation and toughening punishments for gender violence is crucial in the campaign to eradicate it. Of
course, preventive action must be comprehensive and not just focused on tertiary prevention. Secondary
prevention is also important to advance the protection of victims of gender violence and, if we really want to
eradicate gender violence, primary prevention is fundamental as it involves breaking away from practices and
ways of life associated with a patriarchal society that masks and/or justifies gender violence. However,
including for the purposes of primary and secondary prevention, it is essential to end the sense of impunity that
can give rise to a less rigorous application of preventative measures and criminal punishments.
15
This impression has even gone beyond national media. See, for example, headlines from El Mundo: “Misogynist violence goes
unpunished. Only 14% of those convicted are actually imprisoned; 22,487 do ‘Community Service’―14,000 committed offences
worthy of up to five years in prison, but the majority do not go―After Road Safety, Gender Violence is the category with the
most alternative punishments”, http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2015/05/05/5547d5c5ca4741121b8b459e.html.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ORGANIC ACT 1/2004

257
References
Calvo-García, M. (2003). The treatment of domestic violence in the Spanish Administration of Justice. Madrid: CGPJ. Retrieved
from http://www.poderjudicial.es
Calvo-García, M. (2008). Gender violence before the Spanish Administration of Justice: Initial notes regarding the
implementation of OA 1/2004. In N. S. Miguel and J. M. Gómez (Eds.), A collection theoretical and practical issues
regarding the OA 1/2004 (pp. 75-100). Madrid: CGPJ.
Calvo-García, M. (Ed.). (2004). The treatment of domestic violence within the Administration of Justice, years 2000-2002. Madrid:
CGPJ. Retrieved from http://www.poderjudicial.es
Group of Experts in the Research Committee Against Domestic Violence and Gender Violence. (2016). Report on rulings by TJ
and AP for deaths of partners or ex-partners 2015 and minors. Madrid: CGPJ.
Violence Against Women in the Provincial Courts. (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Estadistica-Judicial/Estadistica-por-temas/Datos-penales--civiles-y-laborales/Viol
encia-domestica-y-Violencia-de-genero/Datos-sobre-Violencia-sobre-la-mujer-en-la-estadistica-del-CGPJ/

Publication Information:
US-China Law Review is published monthly in hard copy (ISSN 1548-6605) and online (ISSN 1930-2061) by David
Publishing Company located at 616 Corporate Way, Suite 2-4876, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USA
Aims and Scope:
US-China Law Review, a monthly professional academic journal, commits itself to promoting the academic communication
about laws of China and other countries, covers all sorts of researches on legal history, law rules, legal culture, legal
theories, legal systems, questions, debate and discussion about law from the experts and scholars all over the world.
Manuscripts and correspondence are invited for publication. You can submit your papers via Web Submission, or E-mail to
law@davidpublishing.com. Submission guidelines and Web Submission system are available at
http://www.davidpublisher.com/ or http://www.davidpublishing.com.
Editorial Board Members
Prof. Obeng Mireku (South Africa), Pacharo Kayira (Malawi), Prof. Jianfei Li (China) , Dr. Mohsen Abdollahi (Iran), Dr. Qi
Ming (China), Dr. Sheetal Chopra (India), Prof. Shenting Tsai (China Taiwan), Prof. Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid (Israel), Dr. Sibel
Hacımahmutoğlu (Turkey), Prof. Usha Tandon (India), Litigator Vira Kammee (Thailand), Prof. Young Hoa Jung (Korea), Prof.
A. F. M. Maniruzzaman (UK), Dr. Andrew Agapiou (UK), Prof. Aniceto Masferrer (Spain), Post Doctoral Annalisa Triggiano
(Italy), Dr. Dana Sramkova (Czech), Prof. Dobrinka Ivanova Chankova (Bulgaria), Dr. Gabrielle McIntyre (The Netherlands),
Prof. Gordana Kovaček-Stanić (Serbia), Prof. Kristine Strada-Rozenberga (Latvia), Prof. Mária Patakyová (Slovakia), Dr.
Michal Radvan (Czech), Dr. Pavel Koukal (Czech), Prof. Titti Mattsson (Sweden), Dr. Tonye Clinton Jaja (United Kingdom),
Associate Prof. Dawn F. Jourdan (USA), Dr. Nicole Lawrence Ezer (USA), Prof. Paul F. Hodapp (USA)
Editorial Office:
616 Corporate Way, Suite 2-4876, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USA
Tel: 1-323-984-7526 1-323-410-1082
Fax: 1-323-984-7374 1-323-908-0457
E-mail: law@davidpublishing.com; jurist@davidpublishing.com.
Copyright©2019 by David Publishing Company and individual contributors. All rights reserved. David Publishing Company
holds the exclusive copyright of all the contents of this journal. In accordance with the international convention, no part of this
journal may be reproduced or transmitted by any media or publishing organs (including various websites) without the written
permission of the copyright holder. Otherwise, any conduct would be considered as the violation of the copyright. The contents
of this journal are available for any citation, however, all the citations should be clearly indicated with the title of this journal,
serial number and the name of the author.
Abstracted/Indexed in:
Google Scholar
Hein Online, W. S. Hein, USA
Database of EBSCO, Massachusetts, USA
Chinese Database of CEPS, Airiti Inc. & OCLC
Chinese Scientific Journals Database, VIP Corporation, Chongqing, P. R. China
Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory
CSA Social Science Collection, Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), USA
ProQuest, USA
Summon Serials Solutions
Universe Digital Library S/B, Malaysia
Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD), Norway
Subscription Information:
Print $520, Online $320, Print and Online $600 (per year)
David Publishing Company
616 Corporate Way, Suite 2-4876, Valley Cottage, NY 10989, USA
Tel: 1-323-984-7526 1-323-410-1082
Fax: 1-323-984-7374 1-323-908-0457
E-mail: order@davidpublishing.com
Digital Cooperative Company: www.bookan.com.cn

David Publishing Company
www.davidpublisher.com
DAVID
PUBLISHING
D