I am confused by the tense simplification in subordinate clauses and modal verbs which can be used to talk about the present or future.
Let's look at this sentence first:-
"
Any person who wounds a person must be sentenced to permanent imprisonment."
"
Must" in the main clause can be used to talk about the present or future.
So if "
must" in the main clause talks about the future, and I apply the time simplification rule to the subordinate clause, the time of the subordinate clause should be future: "
Any person who [will] wound a person must be sentenced to permanent imprisonment".
No. As you know, the present tense can also be used with a future meaning. In this case, both clauses can be read with a present or future meaning.
But if "
must" in the main clause talks about the present, the time of the subordinate clause should be present,
Why?
"Any person who wounded another person in last weeks fight must be sentenced to permanent imprisonment."
Do you find a problem with this use of the simple past in the subordinate clause?
telling in general who "any person" is.
How can I interprete the times of the main and suboridnate clauses

The tenses are chosen for the intended meaning. They don't have to be the same.
Another question is that if "must" in the main clause talks about the present, can I say that the main clause does not only refer to the present, but also refers to all the time (i.e. it is a thing in general or a permanent situation)
Yes. If it's a law that wounding another person attracts a penalty of permanent imprisonment, you are stating a [semi-]permanent truth. Note that this is the passive voice of the simple present tense. Another example:
"Even rich people must eventually be parted from their money."
Thank for your help in advance
