The Supreme Court Judgment 22 March 2006 He established that: "The crime of threats committed by the announcement aware of a bad future, unfair, determined and possible, with the sole purpose of creating an uneasiness of mind, restlessness or anxiety in the threatened, but without the intention to physically harm the subject itself (STS. 593/2003 from 16.4), It is the legally protected freedom and security, that is to say "everyone has the right to rest and to personal tranquility in the normal and orderly development of his life" (STS. 832/98 from 17.6).

this offense, It characterized by the following elements:

1. Conduct agent composed of expressions or appropriate actions to violate the spirit of the taxpayer, intimidándole communication with an unfair bad, determined and possible, more or less immediate realization, it depends solely on the will of the active subject.
2. It is a crime of simple activity, expression or danger, and not true injury, in such a way that if it occurs will act as a complement the type.
3. That the expression of this purpose by the agent is serious, firm and credible, taking into account the circumstances.
4. These same circumstances, subjective and objective, imbue behavior sufficiently important to merit a strong social rejection, reasonably substantiate the judgment of the unlawfulness of the action and qualification as criminal. It is an offense that presents greater relativism, so it must be paid attention to the circumstances. The intent of the unconditional type of threat is the very wording of the phrases used and how and when they are uttered in the context of relations between author and victim, that reflect the proven facts.