One of the five men convicted of gang rape in Spain seven years ago has had his sentence commuted. the law on sexual consent, which contained a loophole that allowed for a reduced sentenceand which was introduced by the socialist government after public outrage over the case, reports Guardian.

The rape, which took place during a festival in Pamplona in July 2016, shocked the country and sparked protests across the country after the five accused were initially convicted of the crime of sexual violence.

The rapists, who called themselves la manada, or the wolf pack, on their WhatsApp group, had their jail terms increased from nine to 15 years each after the Supreme Court later found them guilty of raping an 18-year-old woman.

Outrage over the case prompted Spanish governments to revisit the issue of consent to sex, and new legislation known as “just yes means yes” came into effect last October.

He revised the criminal code, making sexual consent — or the lack of it — key to defining assault cases, attempting to define any non-consensual sex as rape.

It also reduced the minimum and maximum prison terms, leading to reduced sentences for some offenders on appeal.

More than 1,000 convicted sex offenders have used the loophole to reduce their sentences, and more than 100 have used it to get parole. In April of this year, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez apologized to victims for what he called the unintended consequences of the new law.

• Spain’s prime minister apologizes to victims of sexual abuse over loophole in consent law reform that led to hundreds of abusers being freed

On Tuesday, the High Court of the Navarre region, whose capital is Pamplona, ​​announced that under the new legislation the sentence of one of the rapists from the “pack of wolves” was reduced from 15 to 14 years.

In their ruling, the judges said they had accepted an appeal to reduce the man’s sentence to bring him in line with the new law, which reduces the available minimum sentence from 14 years and three months to 13 years. Because the high court imposed prison terms close to the minimum possible punishment for the crime, they said they decided to reduce the sentence accordingly.

However, one of the court’s judges, Esther Eris, objected to the reduction, saying it could not be based on “mere criteria of arithmetical proportionality” and that it must take into account all the elements that underpinned the Supreme Court’s original ruling. The decision can still be appealed in the Supreme Court.