Murder suspect challenges Malta’s femicide law again, claims it’s discriminatory

A man awaiting trial for the alleged murder of his partner has filed a constitutional appeal insisting Malta’s femicide reforms breach his fundamental rights by preventing him from invoking the long-established “crime of passion” defence.

Fabian Eliuth Garcia Parada, who was charged in January 2024 with the murder of Sandra Ramirez, is contesting Act X of 2022, which introduced femicide aggravations and removed access to the passjoni immedjata defence in such cases. The defence traditionally allowed courts to impose a lower punishment when a killing occurred in sudden emotional agitation.

Parada argues the reforms created a two-tier justice system, where defendants in cases involving female victims are barred from raising a defence available in other homicide prosecutions, breaching the principles of equality and fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Maltese Constitution.

The defence argues that the law “penalises solely on the basis of the victim’s gender,” amounting to discriminatory treatment and unconstitutional interference with the conduct of a criminal defence.

The application notes that the law’s exclusion applies “ex lege and automatically,” meaning that where the victim is a woman and femicide circumstances exist, the court is legally prevented from considering sudden-passion mitigation, a provision present in Maltese criminal law since the promulgation of the Criminal Code.

Parada initially asked the Magistrates’ Court, where compilation proceedings are still ongoing, to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. That request was refused, prompting this independent constitutional case. He now argues the lower court incorrectly declined referral without expressly declaring the request “frivolous or vexatious,” as required by law, before blocking constitutional scrutiny.

His appeal cites case law to argue that constitutional access cannot be curtailed unless the court clearly states the request is frivolous, warning that the contrary approach risks “retrograde injustice” and undermines constitutional safeguards.

The prosecution insisted the complaint is premature because no bill of indictment has yet been issued and the criminal process is still at an early stage. They describe the constitutional move as an attempt to short-circuit the criminal case.

The State argues that the femicide provisions reflect Malta’s international obligations and respond to the reality of gender-based killings and domestic violence, stressing that the amendments were introduced following public debate and recommendations from bodies such as GREVIO and the Istanbul Convention.

The defence’s theory that the law discriminates against male accused persons is rejected by the State, which notes the provision distinguishes on the basis of the victim’s gender, not that of the accused, and represents a permissible positive-action measure designed to combat violence against women.

The prosecution also argued that the sudden-passion defence is not a fundamental right but a statutory tool, and therefore its removal in specific circumstances does not violate access to justice or fair-trial guarantees.

Parada is seeking the annulment of the lower court’s refusal and a direction ordering the constitutional claim to be heard in full, arguing that only the constitutional bench can assess whether the femicide reforms withstand human-rights scrutiny.

The appeal court will now determine whether the case should proceed for constitutional examination.

Defence lawyers José Herrera and Yanika Bugeja represented the accused.