Criminal Lawyers for Crimes Against Honor & Dignity

Crimes against honor (Title XI, Arts. 205-216 CP) protect a fundamental right constitutionally recognized in Art. 18.1 SC: honor, reputation, self-esteem and personal dignity. Together with slander (Art. 205 CP) and libel (Art. 208 CP), the criminal system protects closely connected legal interests such as personal privacy, one's image and identity (Art. 401 CP for usurpation). Constitutional Court doctrine and Supreme Court case-law have consolidated a case-by-case balancing technique between the right to honor and the freedoms of expression (Art. 20.1.a SC) and information (Art. 20.1.d SC), considering truthfulness, public interest, the public relevance of the person concerned and the proportionality of the expressions used.

The typical modalities present crucial technical nuances. Slander (Art. 205 CP) consists in imputing a crime to another knowing it false or with reckless disregard for truth; it admits the exceptio veritatis (Art. 207 CP), which exonerates if the accused proves truthfulness. Libel (Art. 208 CP) covers any action or expression damaging dignity, reputation or self-esteem, requiring for criminal typification that it be serious and made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. Publicity (Art. 211 CP) —through press, broadcasting, social media or similar means— aggravates both types. Minor libel is a civil tort (Art. 1902 CC), not criminal. Paradigmatic cases are defamation on social media, memes and deepfakes, forum publications and WhatsApp groups with multiple members.

The statutory penalties are notable and modulate with the publicity aggravator. Slander with publicity (Art. 206 CP) carries imprisonment of six months to two years or a fine of 12 to 24 months; without publicity, a fine of 6 to 12 months. Serious libel with publicity (Art. 209 CP) carries a fine of 6 to 14 months; without publicity, 3 to 7 months. Conviction may include publication of the judgment at the convict's expense, removal of content from the internet and a civil compensation liability under Organic Act 1/1982 on civil protection of honor, personal and family privacy and one's image, which has consolidated significant compensatory parameters (between €5,000 and €60,000 in cases of mass dissemination). When hate crime (Art. 510 CP) concurs, penalties scale up to four years' imprisonment.

The technical defense articulates around four consolidated axes. First, constitutional framing: many apparently offensive expressions are legitimate exercise of Art. 20 SC freedoms; defense must prove public interest, subjective truthfulness (due diligence in verification), satirical or critical context (animus iocandi, criticandi, informandi), and absence of defamatory intent (animus iniuriandi). Second, the exceptio veritatis: for slander, proof of truth of the imputed fact fully exonerates. Third, preservation or challenge of digital evidence: chain of custody of screenshots, notarial content records, metadata certification and computer expert reports determine evidentiary solidity; evidence obtained in violation of rights (Art. 11 LOPJ) must be expelled. Fourth, procedural requirements: honor crimes are private crimes (Art. 215 CP), require the offended party's private prosecution and, with exceptions, prior conciliation (Arts. 278 and 804 LECrim); non-compliance leads to dismissal.

In current forensic practice, judicialization of honor crimes has multiplied with digitalization. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, anonymous forums and instant messaging groups concentrate most litigation. Act 2/2023 on whistleblower protection, Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, European Court of Human Rights case-law (Delfi AS v. Estonia, MTE v. Hungary) and doctrine on the digital right to be forgotten (CJEU Google Spain, case C-131/12, and STC 58/2018 and 89/2022) configure a complex framework. At Alonso Sala, with more than 15 years of experience, we intervene both as private prosecution (technical complaints with notarial records, forensic linguistic expert evidence, social media extraction and IP identification proceedings under Art. 588 ter k LECrim) and as defense for the accused, invoking constitutional doctrine on freedom of expression, the exceptio veritatis and atypicality for animus iocandi or criticandi.

Crimes against honor are regulated in Title XI of the Criminal Code (Arts. 205-216). Slander (Art. 205) is the imputation of a crime made with knowledge of its falseness or reckless disregard for truth. Libel (Art. 208) is any action or expression that damages dignity, reputation or self-esteem. Both are private crimes requiring private prosecution by the offended party. Hate crimes (Art. 510) and identity theft (Art. 401) are located in other titles but protect closely related legal interests: dignity, equality and the free development of personality.

Our intervention covers both aspects: as defense of the accused, we invoke freedom of expression, the exceptio veritatis (except in libel) and the animus iocandi or criticandi; as private prosecution, we prepare technically solid prosecutions with notarial records of digital content, linguistic expert reports and forensic extraction of social media. In digital crimes, speed in evidence preservation is decisive: a deleted tweet cannot be evidence if not certified in time.

The Spanish Criminal Code (CP) scales the penalty according to the offence committed and the presence of publicity. Under Art. 211 CP, slander and libel are deemed committed with publicity when spread through the press, broadcasting or any other means of similar reach; Spanish courts routinely place social media, forums, news sites and large messaging groups in this category.

These penalties are complemented by specific provisions of Title XI. Where slander or libel is committed for price, reward or promise, courts additionally impose special disqualification of six months to two years (Art. 213 CP). A retraction before the judicial authority lowers the penalty by one degree (Art. 214 CP). The individual or company owning the media outlet through which the offence was spread is jointly and severally liable in civil terms (Art. 212 CP). And reparation of harm includes publication of the convicting judgment at the convicted person's expense (Art. 216 CP). Fines follow the day-fine system: the daily quota is set by the judge according to the offender's financial means, so the final amount can differ widely between defendants facing the same nominal penalty.

Slander and libel between private individuals are private offences: no one can be punished for them except upon a criminal complaint (querella) filed by the offended party or their legal representative, and proceedings are only brought ex officio where the offence targets a public official or authority over acts of office (Art. 215.1 CP). That private nature imposes a specific procedural path, and failure to follow it leads to inadmission:

1. Immediate evidence preservation. Before any filing, the offensive content must be certified: notarial record of the post, certified screenshots, URLs, profile identifiers and dates. Art. 278 LECrim allows urgent verification measures to be carried out even before the conciliation certificate is produced, with proceedings then suspended until that requirement is met.
2. Prior conciliation act (Art. 804 LECrim). No complaint for slander or libel against private individuals is admitted unless the complainant produces a certificate showing a conciliation act was held with the respondent or was attempted without success. No agreement is required: a certified attempt suffices (for instance, if the respondent fails to appear). In practice, conciliation also works as a thermometer of the dispute: many matters end at this stage with removal of the content, a correction and a compensation agreement.
3. Judicial leave where the statements were made in court (Art. 805 LECrim). When the expressions were uttered within judicial proceedings, prior authorisation from the court that heard them is additionally required, in line with Art. 215.2 CP.
4. Drafting and filing the complaint (Art. 277 LECrim). It must always be filed through a court agent (procurador) with sufficient power of attorney and signed by a lawyer, with a detailed account of the facts (place, date and medium of dissemination), the investigative measures requested — identification of the account holder, orders to platforms, expert reports — and, where the offence was committed in writing, attaching whenever possible the document containing it (Art. 806 LECrim).
5. Admission and investigation. The court reviews the procedural prerequisites (conciliation, standing, time limit) and carries out the requested measures. Formal defects are the respondent's first line of defense: a premature or incomplete complaint can be ruled inadmissible.
6. Trial and forms of termination. The case may end with a judgment, with a retraction by the respondent carrying a penalty one degree lower and possible publication of the retraction in the same medium (Art. 214 CP), or with the offended party's pardon, which extinguishes the criminal action (Art. 215.3 CP). A conviction may include publication of the judgment at the convicted person's expense (Art. 216 CP) and civil compensation.

Art. 131.1 CP expressly removes slander and libel from the general five-year rule: they become time-barred after one year, the shortest limitation period in the CP together with minor offences. Time runs from the day the offence was committed (Art. 132.1 CP). With online publications, the continued availability of the content raises debate about when the clock starts; the prudent position is to count from the date of publication and act immediately. The deadline should not be stretched: the preliminary steps — notarial record, conciliation petition, the conciliation hearing itself — consume weeks, and filing the conciliation petition does not by itself guarantee interruption of the limitation period, so the criminal complaint must be on file within the year.

The offended party's pardon is the other singular feature of these offences. Under Art. 130.1.5 CP, it extinguishes criminal liability in offences prosecutable at the aggrieved party's instance or where the law so provides, and Art. 215.3 CP provides for it expressly for slander and libel. It must be granted expressly and before judgment is handed down, with the court hearing the offended party beforehand; it does not extinguish liability in offences against minors or persons with disabilities in need of special protection affecting eminently personal interests. In forensic practice, the pardon is the piece that closes settlements: public retraction, removal of the content and compensation in exchange for an express pardon that ends the proceedings. Designing and documenting that agreement properly is as important as the complaint itself.

Anyone whose honor is attacked has three non-exclusive routes: a criminal complaint for slander or libel, a civil claim under Organic Law 1/1982 on civil protection of the rights to honor, personal and family privacy and one's own image, and the right of rectification under Organic Law 2/1984. Choosing the right route — or combining them — is the first strategic decision in the case.

The civil route under LO 1/1982 does not require proving the author's intent or the seriousness demanded by the criminal offence: it suffices to establish an unlawful interference with honor, and the statute itself presumes harm once the interference is proven. Compensation is assessed according to the circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the harm and the reach of the medium, and the period for bringing the claim — four years — is far longer than the one-year criminal limitation period. It is the natural route when the expression sits in the grey zone of defamatory intent, when the main goal is compensation, or when the criminal deadline has already passed.

The right of rectification is the fastest remedy against inaccurate and damaging factual reports published by a media outlet: the person concerned sends the outlet's director a written rectification within seven calendar days of publication, and the outlet must publish it with prominence similar to the original report; if it refuses, a specific, expedited civil procedure follows. It provides no compensation or sanction, but it corrects the public record with a speed neither the criminal nor the civil route can match, and it requires proof of neither falsity nor fault.

When is the criminal route advisable? When the imputation is serious and clearly false, when the machinery of a judicial investigation is needed to identify an anonymous author (IP identification measures and orders to platforms that a civil judge cannot grant with the same breadth), or when the aim is the effect of a public retraction and publication of the judgment (Arts. 214 and 216 CP). A criminal conviction also encompasses civil liability, although the offended party may reserve the civil action to pursue it separately. At our firm we analyse each matter along these three coordinates — deadline, available evidence and the client's real objective — and work to articulate the most effective combination of actions, including urgent removal of the content.