The Supreme Court says that the silence of a victim after a rape does not translate into the acquittal of the accused

Confirms the sentence to 13 years in prison for a man for sexually assaulting another and trying to kill him

MADRID, 18 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has ruled that the silence of a victim after a rape does not result in the acquittal of the accused because it neither disqualifies the reality of the facts nor does it imply a lie on the part of the affected person. In addition, he stressed that "it is not ruled out" that there are cases in which people decide to denounce what happened "only after a cooler reflection."

The magistrates have thus pronounced in the framework of a sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, on a particular case that took place in Madrid in 2020, when a man sexually assaulted his ex-partner and tried to kill him with a knife in the neck.

Specifically, the events date back to September of that year, when the victim visited the condemned man at his home to "shave him and bring him clean clothes." Months ago, both had maintained a "sentimental relationship without coexistence" in which they had "consensual sexual relations."

On the day of the events, the convicted person asked the victim to stay "just a few minutes" and "with the intention of satisfying his sexual desire, he took out a knife and showing it to him ordered him to 'play the role of a woman'". According to the resolution, he also ordered her to undress and lie down on the mattress. There he sexually assaulted her.

At the end, the condemned man "picked up the knife", grabbed the victim, put his arm around his neck and pointed the gun at him. "If you're not for me, you're not going to be for anyone," he told her, and "with the intention of causing her death, he forcefully slid the knife down her neck."

The man managed to deflect the weapon and flee. He was then "helped by some policemen who heard the screams." That day, he suffered a "wound in the right laterocervical region with tracheal injury (...) and acute post-traumatic stress." He required surgical treatment and 39 days of healing; he was left with a scar on his neck.

In his appeal, the convicted man alleged that his right to the presumption of innocence had been violated. In his opinion, the "contradictory" statements of the victim and his "silence" in "the initial moments" do not allow him to be convicted.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal and has confirmed the sentence of 13 years in prison and compensation of 12,300 euros for a crime of sexual assault and a crime of attempted murder. He has also ratified the sentence that prohibits him from approaching the victim within 500 meters and the eight years of supervised freedom.

In 14 pages, the magistrates have explained that the victim's silence "in the moments immediately following" the rape and attack "may be due to various explanations."

In this sense, the court has ruled out that the silence disqualifies the reality of the facts or implies a lie by the victim. And, in this particular case, he attributes it to "the logical tension" after the attack and the "open wound on the neck" that "difficulty dialogue" with the man.

In the resolution, of which Antonio del Moral has been a rapporteur, the Criminal Chamber has indicated that although "postponing the moment of complaint may lead to the impossibility of collecting some hypothetical elements of evidence", this "does not imply the defenselessness" of the accused .

The Supreme Court has assured that the interpretation suggested by the defense would lead to an "intolerable scenario". "A single example: any complaint by an adult for sexual abuse suffered when he was a minor would never lead to a conviction, whatever the evidence, since the accused would be deprived of the analysis of possible biological remains," the court said.

Thus, it has stressed that the delay in reporting the sexual crime "can and must be assessed to test the credibility to be granted to the witness", but in this case that circumstance "does not disqualify the veracity of the victim's statements". In fact, the magistrates have considered that "the victim's statement is adorned with characteristics that give it reliability".