The public networks publication of a video which shows a group of young people while they left a bathroom from the Autonomous University of Santo (UASD), after an alleged group fellatio, has two legal scenarios:
The first, one Intimacy affectation. The second, Public dissemination of private images through electronic systems. According to the criminal Cándido Simón, the consequences for those who recorded these people could be even a sentence to prison.
“That can lead to a five-year prison sentence,” said the lawyer, based on the provisions of Law 24-97, which introduces modifications to the Criminal Code and to the code for the protection of children and adolescents, specifically in the Articles 337 and 338; and the Law on Crimes and Crimes of High Technology.
Public bathroom and access bathroom
Although the incident occurred, supposedly, in a UASD bath, the penalist explained, it was a “discreet area.” I mean, «In principle, there There is a public outrage to modesty. If (whatever you are doing) in the bathroom, whether urinating or whatever, there is nothing ».
«You can enter a bath. And that (from the UASD) is not a public bath. It is a public bathroom, which are different things. You enter there and you lock yourself discreetly and urine (anything), even if it is caused by another person (adult) there is no criminal type, ”said Cándido.
Regarding the Differences between a public bath and another access to the publicThe penalist explained that «the concept of public bath (as such) does not exist, in principle. Because that was used in Rome: all women were going and bathed in an open site, in view of the whole world. But that was before Christ. And the issue of respect for modesty and this type of thing comes when they lock themselves in those areas for those services. So the bathroom here is Public access dispenser«.
«But anyway, that action (of the university) is an affectation to the right to privacyto intimacy and dignity, which are in the Constitution As fundamental rights, but above all they have criminal consequences in 337 of the Criminal Code and the Law of Electronic Crime, ”he said.
The lawyer recalled what said article requires: no one can capture, record or transmit the image of a person without consent “who is in a private place.”
UASD position
On the subject, the UASD issued a statement, with which it emphasized that no staff of that house of studies “is authorized to record and much less to expose them, as could be evidenced in the aforementioned video.”
It may interest you: SCJ puts an end to Litis of UASD land with new law 2-23
«We will continue investigating If there was any kind of violation of the protocols established by security, to determine the type of action that proceeds for these types of situations, according to the context of an institution of higher studies, ”said the Autonomous University.
