An "irrational," "illogical," and judgment-filled ruling: the Supreme Court's ruling in a sexual violence case

BarcelonaThe case took nine years to close. In June 2016, two girls, aged 17 and 18, were sexually assaulted by a man, HSR, on the same night during the Palamós festival. The third section of the Girona Provincial Court acquitted the accused, and the High Court of Justice (TSJC) upheld the Girona court's decision. However, in November 2024, the Supreme Court issued a harsh ruling against the Girona Court's decision, accusing it of having issued a ruling that was "unreasonable," "irrational," and "illogical" in its arguments, filled with "personal" judgments, in addition to omitting, "without any explanation," supporting evidence. With this harsh rebuke from the Supreme Court—which also slams the TSJC's ear to avoid delving deeper into the case—in March, the Girona Court issued another sentence, this time a conviction: two years and nine months in prison for the accused.

THE NOW already explained the year 2021 That the third section of the Girona Court of Appeals cast doubt on the victims' witnesses in a very large percentage of sexual violence cases. It was precisely in 2021 that it acquitted HSR. It did so in a February ruling and, subsequently, in June it clarified and replaced "two crimes of sexual abuse" with "two crimes of sexual assault." However, it considered that there was insufficient evidence to convict the man. The prosecution of one of the girls, who was run by the Carla Vall office, appealed the ruling, but the TSJC dismissed the appeal, with a dissenting vote from one of the judges, who disagreed. The case ended up in the Supreme Court because the prosecution considered that several of the young woman's rights had been violated and, furthermore, the court had omitted several pieces of evidence, such as a psychological report from the victim, a hospital care report from the same day, and a biological report.

Personal opinions

"The Court also offered its personal and subjective opinion on the fact that the accused was reported on the same night" by two girls, the Supreme Court reports, criticizing the Girona judges for considering that both girls "not only know each other" but also share "friendships," and it could therefore be argued that the girl is a minor under 17 years of age. For the Supreme Court, the Court "does not explain or specify what evidence leads it to make these statements." The exculpatory ruling also described an injury to the vaginal area as "minimal," without any objective basis, and despite the fact that the experts indicated that the girl's disorders were compatible with those of rape, the judges sentenced according to their personal opinions: "After having had sexual intercourse, if they had had it. An event that can undoubtedly be very traumatic, but which excludes any criminal liability." The Supreme Court endorses the dissenting opinion of the TSJC judge in rejecting the exculpatory argument: "It does not seem logical that regret for having had consensual sexual relations could cause all the symptoms and consequences that the complainant presented and continues to present." In this regard, the third section is also criticized for omitting the post-traumatic stress suffered by the girl, who was treated by social services and underwent psychological treatment for three years.

Finally, one of the facts that most surprises the Supreme Court is that the sentence was drafted based on the judges' "personal knowledge" of the scene of the crime, the Palamós festivities. Thus, although the girl and several witnesses—whose accounts were not taken into account—claimed that the attacker and the victim were separated from the rest of the people in the area, on the beach, the judges concluded that it was logical that they were "surrounded by people" and ruled out the possibility that "the complainant shouted alone."

Change of Sentence

In the final ruling of the third section, however, the court assesses the "plausibility" and "reliability" of the victim's account. "The conviction" is based on the young woman's testimony and "other peripheral elements that contribute to solidly endowing it with credibility," the text states. Thus, they conclude that the victim could not be required to commit "heroic acts of resistance" that would have endangered "her physical integrity." However, given that the trial lasted almost nine years, something "intolerable" according to the judges themselves, they applied a mitigating circumstance to the aggressor to reduce the sentence, which ultimately amounts to two years and nine months in prison, in addition to five years of supervised release and a prohibition on approaching within 300 meters.