Sacrosanctity was the declaration of physical inviolability of a temple, a sacred object or a person through the lex sacrata (sacred law), which had religious connotations. Festus explained that: “Sacred laws are laws which have the sanction that anyone who broke them becomes accursed to one of the gods, together with his family and property”. It thought that in some cases the law was applied to protect temples from being defiled. It could also be applied to protect a person who was declared sacrosanct (inviolable). Those who harmed a sacrosanct person became sacer (accursed) through the declaration sacer esto! (Let him be accursed). The offender was considered as having harmed the gods/a god, as well as the sacrosanct person and therefore accursed to the gods/a god. This meant that the offender became forfeit to the god(s) and on his death he was surrendered to the god(s) in question. The implication was that anyone who killed him was considered as performing a sacred duty and enjoyed impunity.
In the literature by Roman historians, the term sacrosanctity is usually found in relation to the Tribune of the Plebs, or plebeian tribune.
During the rebellion of the first plebeian secession (see First secessio plebis in 494 BC), which marked the beginning of the Conflict of the Orders between patricians (the aristocrats) and plebeians (the commoners), the plebeian movement instituted and elected its leaders, who soon also came to act as the representatives of the plebs: the plebeian tribunes. It also instituted the assistants of these tribunes (the plebeian aediles) and its own assembly, the Plebeian Council (Concilium Plebis). These plebeian institutions were extra-legal in that they were not recognised by the senate and the Roman state, which were controlled by the patricians. The bones of contention in the Conflict of the Orders were the economic grievances of the poor, the protection of plebeians and, later, power-sharing with the patricians (who monopolised political power) with the rich plebeians. The patricians resisted the plebeian movement and its demands because the interests of the plebeians most often clashed with theirs and they saw this movement as a threat to their political and economic privileges.