Insisting on dogmatic application of the criterion of habitualness means ignoring the specificity of this offense in which the victim is forced to live with the perpetrator and where the threatened legal interests and effectively injured, overcome physical integrity.
Fortunately, in 2000, two judgments of the TS, help to clear any doubts and betting on a criterion of habitualness, not centered properly in the number of acts of violence and temporal proximity, thereof as climate of contrasted violence suffered by the attacked and therefore vulnerable on its responsibility.
The most modern line of interpretation irrespective of the above numerical automation, more wisely it understood that what is important to appreciate the habitualness more than the plurality itself is repetition or frequency involving a stay in the violent treatment, the important thing being that the Court comes to the conclusion that the victim lives in a state of permanent aggression.
The habitualness should not be interpreted in a legal sense of recidivism of aggressions--what might constitute a problem of "double jeopardy"--seems wiser to opt for a naturalistic approach understanding habitualness as repetition of acts of identical content but not strictly plurality which makes the act a crime, but the relationship between perpetrator and victim often as it happens, this is the permanence of violent treatment, so the need to consider it follows as a separate offense.
In this regard we must consider what the criminal law says at the end of its second paragraph, which is intended to give the maximum amplitude of this third element of the criminal type, when told that such habitualness can be expressed 'irrespective that such violence has been exercised on the same or different victims included in this article (...) .