In its decision dated July 9, 2026, the Court of Appeals dismissed the woman’s appeal in its entirety, upholding the nine-month immediate prison sentence imposed on her by the Nicosia District Court for distributing photographs and videos of a sexual nature depicting another woman withoutconsent.

The Court ruled that the sentence was not excessive and that there were no grounds for suspending its execution, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense, which constitutes a form of violence against women and violates human dignity and the right to privacy.

The case concerns the appellant’s conviction, following her admission of guilt, for distributing to a third party, as well as to the complainant, photographs and videos depicting the complainant herself in sexually explicit material, in violation of the Law on the Prevention and Combating of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

In her appeal, the convicted woman argued that the sentence imposed on her by the Nicosia District Court was manifestly excessive and that its execution should have been suspended, citing, among other things, delays in the criminal proceedings, the fact that she did not create the material in question herself but had received it from a co-defendant, and that she acted in response to a provocation, in the context of a personal feud.

The Court of Appeals rejected all of these arguments, ruling that none of them constituted grounds for a reduced sentence.

The decision places particular emphasis on the seriousness of the offense. The Court of Appeals adopted the approach of the trial court verbatim, noting that: “The seriousness of this offense has a direct impact on the dignity, the psyche, and the psychological integrity of the victim, since personal moments—which the victim expects to remain private—are not respected and are disclosed to third parties.”

At the same time, he noted that this particular offense is on the rise, pointing out that: “The offense of sending sexually explicit material is on an alarming rise, as evidenced by the cases the Court handles very frequently, and this justifies the imposition of even more deterrent penalties.”

The Court of Appeals also rejected the claim that the appellant was provoked by the complainant’s behavior, because the complainant had previously shared her personal photographs or because the two women had been in a relationship with the same person.

As stated in the decision, invoking “jealousy” cannot serve as a mitigating factor in offenses of this nature. The Court noted that these circumstances “do not constitute grounds for a suspended sentence. Quite the contrary, we would say.”

It also rejected the argument that the “character” of the complainant should have been taken into account, pointing out that, “certainly, the complainant’s identity—whatever the appellant may mean by that phrase—could not be taken into account as a matter of principle, since Article 28 of the Constitution provides that all are equal before the law and justice and are entitled to equal protection and treatment.”

The Court of Appeals further noted that in this case, the complainant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy—which is protected by Article 15 of the Constitution—had been violated, adding that the violation of human rights requires an exemplary response.

Regarding the request for a suspension of the sentence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion. As it noted, a suspension in this case “would not serve the multiple purposes of the sentence” and “would send the wrong message both to the appellant and to other potential offenders regarding the consequences of committing such offenses.”

In conclusion, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision, maintaining the nine-month immediate prison sentence.

Source: CNA