The two-grade reduction: the sentencing mechanism that keeps him out of prison
One of the technically most interesting aspects of STS 418/2026 is the way in which the Second Chamber calibrates the highly qualified mitigating circumstance of cooperation found in favour of Víctor de Aldama. The Court does not apply a uniform reduction across all the offences for which it convicts him; instead, it draws a distinction: it reduces the sentence by two grades in respect of the offence of criminal organisation (Art. 570 bis of the Criminal Code) and of the continuous bribery that served to hold the network together (Art. 424.2 CC), whereas for the remaining bribery offences the reduction is of one grade only. It is worth examining why that distinction is drawn, whether it reflects judicial discretion, and what would have happened had the two-grade reduction not been applied to those two offences.
Why two grades for precisely those offences?
The reason given by the judgment is that the two-grade reduction is reserved for the offences linked to the facts set out in the first and second sections of the factum — those describing the existence and operation of the criminal organisation — "in respect of which the cooperation is assessed with greater intensity." Aldama's contribution was particularly decisive in establishing the very structure of the network: its stable character, the division of functions, and the payment arrangements that held it together. For those core facts, his testimony and the documentation he provided were virtually irreplaceable. In relation to the remaining individual bribery offences, his contribution, while valuable, did not reach that level of relevance. The degree of reduction is therefore graduated in proportion to the intensity of the cooperation in each factual block.
Is this judicial discretion?
It is, but it is structured rather than unfettered discretion — guided discretion, not arbitrariness. The key lies in Article 66.1.2ª of the Criminal Code, which the judgment itself invokes. Where a highly qualified mitigating circumstance is present, the Court is obliged to impose the sentence reduced by one grade — that first step of reduction is mandatory, not optional — and may additionally reduce it by a second grade. The judgment states this in express terms: the mitigating circumstance "compels us to move, imperatively, within the sentence reduced by one grade, with the possibility of agreeing a reduction of the sentence by two grades." The first grade was required by statute; the second is discretionary and falls within the reasoned judgment of the Chamber. The Court grounds that exercise of discretion in the maximum intensity of the cooperation provided in relation to the facts underpinning the organisation, invoking the need for the State to avail itself of such mechanisms as an indispensable tool against organised corruption.
Would he have gone to prison without the two-grade reduction?
In all probability, yes — and herein lies the practical significance of the decision. After the reductions, Aldama's sentences stood at one year for criminal organisation, one year and six months for the continuous bribery under Article 424.2, and three months for each of the two remaining bribery offences. The highest sentence — determinative for the purposes of suspending execution — is the one year and six months, which corresponds precisely to one of the two offences benefiting from the two-grade reduction.
This is the critical point that the judgment itself makes explicit: the fact that no individual sentence exceeds two years of imprisonment is what "opens the way to the extraordinary suspension provided for in Article 80.3 CC" — a regime that the Code itself qualifies as exceptional and which allows suspension of execution even where the aggregate of sentences exceeds that threshold. We are not, therefore, dealing with the ordinary suspension under Article 80.1 CC — which looks to the aggregate total and would not have been available here — but rather with the exceptional modality under Article 80.3, which the Chamber reasons expressly in its legal grounds. On that basis, it sets the suspension period at five years (Art. 81 CC) and imposes conditions: no re-offending, six-monthly appearances before the Court (Art. 83.1.5ª CC), and community service (Art. 84 CC).
It follows that the second grade of reduction in respect of the Article 424.2 bribery offence is not a mere technical refinement, but the very mechanism that keeps all of Aldama's sentences below the two-year threshold and thereby enables the exceptional suspension regime. Without that second reduction, the sentence in question would have exceeded the threshold, the route under Article 80.3 CC would have been closed, and the convicted person would have been committed to prison.
