The agreement signed between the Government and the Spanish Episcopal Conference (CEE), together with the Spanish Conference of Religious (CONFER), opens a new avenue to assist victims of sexual abuse in the sphere of the Church whose cases have not reached the courts or can no longer do so. The text establishes a common framework for action and makes it clear that this is not a legal imposition, but rather a agreement reached between the parties to address situations that have fallen outside the judicial process.
The document sets out the scope of the system, its duration, and the way in which cases will be processed, with the stated objective of offering recognition and some form of reparation to the victims, without reopening criminal proceedings or replacing the role of the judges.
An extrajudicial avenue with a limited timeframe
The agreement is directed exclusively at those cases in which the judicial route is no longer possible, either because the offenses have prescribed or because the perpetrator has died. In this sense, it is configured as an extrajudicial procedure, designed to address situations that the criminal system can no longer resolve.
In addition, it is an avenue with a limited timeframe. Its initial duration is one year, with the possibility of extending it by one more year if the Government and the Church agree to do so. In this way, the agreement is presented as an exceptional response and not as a permanent structure.
Reparation beyond the economic
One of the aspects emphasized in the text is that reparation is not limited to economic compensation. The agreement contemplates various forms of recognition of the harm suffered, which may include symbolic gestures, psychological or moral support, and other measures tailored to each specific case.
The intention, as inferred from the document, is to avoid a uniform response and to address the reality of each victim, respecting their will and personal situation.
The role of the Ombudsman
The agreed system places the Ombudsman in a central role. Its office will be responsible for studying each case and formulating a proposal for recognition and reparation. That proposal will be assessed by the PRIVA commission, created by the Church, which will issue a report before a final decision is made.
When there are discrepancies between the parties, the agreement provides for a space for dialogue through a joint commission. If consensus is still not reached, it will ultimately be the Ombudsman who adopts the final resolution, after hearing from the parties involved.
A procedure with victim participation
The process is only initiated at the request of the affected person themselves. Throughout the procedure, the victim can learn about the reparation proposal, express their agreement or disagreement, and present any observations they deem appropriate before a final decision is made.
This approach seeks to ensure that the victim is not a passive subject in the process, but rather has real participation in its development.
The Church assumes responsibility for implementing reparations
The agreement establishes that the implementation of reparation measures corresponds to the Church, through the mechanisms already created for this purpose. The CEE and CONFER commit to ensuring that the adopted decisions are carried out, even in cases where the responsible entity cannot do so directly 2.
In this way, the ultimate responsibility for fulfilling the recognized reparations falls on the ecclesiastical institution itself.
Tax exemptions and legal framework
On the part of the Government, the agreement includes the commitment to facilitate that any possible economic reparations are exempt from taxation, so that they do not impose an additional tax burden on the victims. The system fits within the existing legal framework and does not introduce new criminal liabilities or modify final judgments.
Overall, the agreement between the CEE and the Government establishes an exceptional and time-limited avenue to assist victims of abuse in the sphere of the Church when justice can no longer intervene. Its implementation combines the involvement of the Ombudsman, the institutional responsibility of the Church, and the direct participation of the victims, in an attempt to provide a response that did not exist until now.