The Jesuit Migrant Service has expressed its satisfaction following the Supreme Court’s ruling that confirms prison sentences for seven people for comments published on Facebook in 2017 against unaccompanied foreign minors in Melilla. The judicial resolution comes after a long procedure driven, among others, by the popular prosecution exercised by the Jesuit organization itself, whose action has been decisive for the case to reach the high court.
The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has imposed sentences ranging from eight months to one year and ten months in prison for hate crimes. According to the ruling, the convicted individuals spread aggressive comments on the social network Facebook in which they referred to the immigrant minors as “scum”, “trash” or “rabble”, and in which they proposed the creation of vigilante patrols or urged them to return to their country.
The court considers that these expressions cannot be protected by freedom of expression, as it understands that they constitute humiliating and hate-inciting messages against a vulnerable group. The ruling states that freedom of expression “is not an absolute right” when it conflicts with other constitutional rights and when the messages have the capacity to generate hostility or social animosity.
A judicial process driven by the Jesuit prosecution
The procedure originated from comments published in 2017 in the Facebook group “Opinión Popular de Melilla”, which had around 14,000 members in a city of approximately 85,000 inhabitants. Initially, the Criminal Court number 2 of Melilla acquitted the ten defendants, considering that the expressions, although harsh, were protected by freedom of expression.
The situation changed when the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the popular prosecution—exercised by the Jesuit Migrant Service—appealed the acquittal. The Provincial Court of Málaga partially revoked that decision and convicted seven of the defendants for hate crimes, acquitting three of them. The Supreme Court has now confirmed that criterion.
The ruling, however, applies the highly qualified mitigating circumstance of undue delays to all the convicted individuals due to the duration of the procedure, which has lasted nearly nine years. This circumstance has led to a reduction in the penalties initially imposed.
The satisfaction of the Jesuit Migrant Service
After the resolution became known, the Jesuit Migrant Service positively valued the Supreme Court’s ruling. Its lawyer, Javier Moreno Gómez, argued that the sentence clearly establishes that this type of comments cannot be considered mere opinions protected by freedom of expression.
The organization has interpreted the judicial decision as a way to protect migrant children from hostile discourses and has insisted on the need to combat this type of messages in public spaces and on social networks.
However, the tone of satisfaction shown by the entity has generated criticism and surprise in various circles. Not a few observers consider it striking that an organization linked to the Church publicly celebrates a resolution that sends several citizens to prison for comments published on social networks, especially when those messages arose in a social context marked by tension around irregular immigration and the presence of unaccompanied foreign minors in the city.
A deeper social debate
The case once again brings to the table the debate on the limits of freedom of expression and on the application of hate crimes in Spain. It also reflects the climate of tension existing in Spain, where the issue of immigrant minors is generating a difficult-to-sustain crime problem.
In that context, the penal response has been disproportionate in the face of verbal outbursts produced on social networks by citizens who expressed their frustration over coexistence and security problems.
The Supreme Court’s ruling closes the judicial journey of the case, but not the public debate. And the direct involvement of the Jesuit Migrant Service as popular prosecution, as well as its subsequent satisfaction with the penal outcome of the process, have added an element of controversy that once again places at the center of the discussion the role that certain ecclesiastical organizations are playing in highly sensitive social conflicts.