What Is Self-Defence in Spain? Requirements and Limits
Last updated:
listIn this article
lightbulbKey Takeaways
- check_circleUnlawful aggression
- check_circleReasonable necessity
- check_circleNot revenge
- check_circleInsurmountable fear
Quick answer
Self-defence (Art. 20.4 CP) is a FULL exemption: if proven, the accused is acquitted even if they injured or killed the aggressor. It requires three elements: (1) a prior, real and current or imminent unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending. If a non-essential element is missing —the unlawful aggression being present— it operates as an INCOMPLETE exemption (Art. 21.1 CP), lowering the penalty by one or two degrees.
Need help with your case? Talk to a criminal defense lawyer at Alonso Sala.
Self-defence (Art. 20.4 CP) is a full exemption. If it is proven, you are acquitted even if you injured or killed the aggressor. But not "anything goes". Spain is very strict about the requirements. Our criminal lawyers in Madrid can help you with this type of situation.
The 3 Sacred Requirements
1. Unlawful Aggression (Prior and Real)
Someone must attack you, your property or your home. The attack must be real and current (or imminent). Taking revenge afterwards ("he hit me yesterday, today I hit him") does not count. That is not defence, it is revenge.
2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Used
This is where the controversy lies. You must use the "least harmful means possible" to repel the aggression, WITHIN WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAND.
The myth of proportionality: it does not mean "gun against gun". If someone attacks you with a knife and you only have a gun, can you use it? Yes, but perhaps by shooting at the leg, not the head. The situation of stress and the available options are taken into account.
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation
You cannot plead self-defence if you started the fight by provoking the other person into attacking you.
Case: Someone Breaks Into My Home
If they break in to rob you and attack you, you can defend yourself. But if the burglar flees and you shoot them in the back, it is NOT self-defence (there is no longer a current aggression). It would be homicide or bodily harm, perhaps with a mitigating factor, but a conviction nonetheless.
Important
Insurmountable fear is another possible exemption if the defence was not perfect but you acted while terrified.
⚖️ Need a criminal defence lawyer?
If you are facing a charge related to criminal defence, our firm can help. A firm dedicated exclusively to criminal law.
Frequently asked questions
What are the requirements of self-defence?expand_more
Three (Art. 20.4 CP): a prior and current or imminent unlawful aggression; reasonable necessity of the means used to prevent or repel it; and lack of sufficient provocation by the person defending. If all three concur, there is a full exemption and acquittal.
Can I defend myself if someone breaks into my home?expand_more
Yes, as long as the aggression is current or imminent: the home is expressly protected. But if the intruder is already fleeing and there is no danger, the aggression has ceased and the reaction is no longer defence: it would be an offence, perhaps with a mitigating factor.
Does the defence have to be proportional to the attack?expand_more
No identity of weapons is required. What the law demands is the reasonable necessity of the means used, assessed according to the specific circumstances, the means available and the stress the person was under. It is not a mathematical calculation.
What if I went too far in defending myself?expand_more
An excess (intensive or extensive) bars the full exemption, but usually gives rise to the incomplete exemption (Art. 21.1 CP), which lowers the penalty by one or two degrees, or to insurmountable fear (Art. 20.6 CP). The existence of the initial aggression remains key.
What if I mistakenly believed I was being attacked?expand_more
This is putative self-defence: a person who acts on a reasonable mistake believing they are suffering an aggression may have intent excluded or mitigated depending on the type of error (Art. 14 CP). Each case requires a specific analysis of how plausible the mistake was.
Who has to prove self-defence?expand_more
The presumption of innocence applies: the defence raises the exemption and provides indications, but it is for the prosecution to disprove that the person acted in lawful defence. Reconstructing the sequence of the aggression —reports, witnesses, the accused's own injuries— is decisive.
gavelDo you need criminal defense in this area?
We are criminal defense lawyers specializing in general criminal defense. We act urgently to protect your rights.