The bad relationship of the victim with her landlord raises doubts in a case of sexual assault

Judges never tire of citing in their sentences that the victim’s statement in crimes against sexual freedom it may be sufficient proof of the charge, but it must be corroborated by some peripheral objective data. These requirements include persistence and firmness in the testimony, its credibility and that there are no relationships between the victim and the accused that could reveal a motive for resentment or enmity.

In the case of a Moroccan woman, a tenant of a Pakistani immigrant, the judge has chosen to acquit him of the crime of sexual assault of which he was accused, due to the doubt that the events occurred as reported by the complainant or the defendant and conclude that there was a bad relationship between the two.

The woman went to the police the day after, as she explained, the man entered in her room kicking the door and demanding that she sleep with him, since he did not pay her rentand immediately afterwards he touched her breasts and genital area.

The accused, Azhar K., was the owner of the lease of the apartment where three other Pakistanis lived. At trial he denied the facts and argued that everything was due to revenge for demanding payment of rent, as his lawyer, Celia Gil Lagunas, maintained, who emphasized that animosity towards his client. Meanwhile, the woman reiterated her complaint and kept her story unshakable throughout the investigation.

In the sentence, the head of Prison number 1 explains that it is striking that the woman declared that only a month after moving in, the accused already showed a sexual interest and made comments that bothered him, but he didn’t tell anyone and stayed that way for several months. He questions that, although he contacted the social educator the next day and she gave him the police number, she could have done so on the same day of the events. He didn’t have any injuries either.

The judge states that no matter how much she has reviewed and analyzed the behavior of both, she cannot know which of the two versions corresponds to reality and that, given the slightest doubt, “it is not possible to ensure, without problems of conscience, guilt or innocence of the accused, which forces (…) his free acquittal for playing the doubt always in favor of the accused”.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button