Constitutional Court dismisses challenge to femicide law

A constitutional court has dismissed a legal challenge to Malta’s femicide laws, with the defence team intending on moving the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The case was brought by Fabian Eliuth Garcia Parada, who is accused of the 2024 murder of Sandra Milen Ramirez Prieto.

Garcia Parada was arrested on 14 January 2024, for a homicide committed one day prior.

Prieto, his fianceè, was found dead on a bed after being stabbed 26 times with a supermarket knife.

Parada was challenging Malta’s femicide law, a legislative amendment that introduced the concept of femicide into the Maltese Criminal Code through Article 211A.

The provision is triggered when a homicide of a woman occurs under specific aggravating circumstances.

Such aggravating circumstances arise when the killing of a woman is committed by an intimate partner or family member, when it is motivated by misogyny, when it is carried out for reasons of so-called “honour” or religious beliefs, when it is connected to prostitution or human trafficking, or when it involves sexual violence.

The law prevents defendants in such cases from using the legal excuse of "sudden passion" to reduce their culpability.

Represented by lawyers Jose Herrera, Edward Camilleri and Yanika Bugeja, the appellant argued that this legislative framework violates his fundamental rights.

The defence contended that by removing the "sudden passion" excuse based on the gender of the victim, the law violates the provisions in the Constitution and in the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantee a fair trial and protection from discrimination.

The legal saga

The Court of Magistrates had initially refused to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court during the initial inquiry.

In February 2024, the Magistrate’s Court denied the request for a constitutional reference, labeling it "untimely".

It was argued that at the initial stage, the court’s only job is to collect evidence and determine if there is enough proof to proceed with the case, not to decide on the final merits of the case where the femicide law would actually apply.

The appellant then filed a separate constitutional lawsuit, but the First Hall of the Civil Court also dismissed his claims in October 2025, leading to this final appeal.

The judgement delivered on Monday focused on whether the lower courts were right to block the challenge.

The appellant argued that the magistrate never explicitly called his request "frivolous or vexatious", which is the standard required by the Constitution to deny a reference.

However, the Constitutional Court found that when the Criminal Court said that the request for reference was not justified to be accepted, this was “equivalent to saying it found the request to be simply frivolous or vexatious”.

The judges further noted that the criminal proceedings are still in their early stages.

They ruled that because a final decision on the murder charge has not been made, the appellant's rights are not currently being permanently harmed.

The Constitutional Court ultimately dismissed the appeal in its entirety, confirming the previous court's decision.

The court held that this new lawsuit was "intrinsically connected" to the ongoing criminal inquiry and was nothing more than an unauthorised appeal against the Magistrate's original decree

It referred to previous judgements that state that a person cannot bring a new constitutional case regarding the exact same question for which a reference has already been denied by another court.

MaltaToday is informed that the defense will escalate the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to challenge the compatibility of Malta's femicide laws with international human rights standards.