At this criminal defense law firm, with over 20 years of expertise in defending against sexual assault charges, the majority of our cases involve ALLEGEDLY FALSE REPORTS. In most instances, following the judicial statement and the hearing with the Public Prosecutor, the court decrees PRE-TRIAL DETENTION WITHOUT BAIL.
Many young men, due to the poor decision of being with the wrong person, find their lives shattered by this imprisonment. It is such a traumatic experience that it marks them forever; and while there is a lesson to be learned, it offers no consolation.
Even when provisional release is granted, they often emerge disoriented and psychologically affected not only by an experience they should never have endured but also by the daunting prospect of the upcoming trial.
Development of the criminal proceedings
The investigative phase (instrucción) continues until all parties submit evidence, an indictment (auto de procesamiento) is issued, and the formal bills of indictment are filed by both the Public Prosecutor and the private prosecution.
At our Madrid-based firm, we always warn clients about the shock of receiving these documents, where they will read the formal charges, the alleged offences and the sentences requested.
In some cases, the requested prison sentences can reach very high figures, such as:
- 9 years of imprisonment
- 12 years of imprisonment
- 15 years or even more
For this reason, we personally accompany our clients to court in order to explain the situation calmly and mitigate the distress that often arises from reading these accusations.
A top-tier criminal defense firm specializing in sexual assault cases knows how to prepare its clients. In many situations these are men with no previous contact with the justice system, devastated, fearful and insecure about what may happen.
Only trust and the support of an experienced criminal lawyer can help them face the oral trial with confidence and strength.
The trial
After one or more days of trial, once all evidence, testimonies, and expert reports have been presented, the Prosecutor, the private prosecution, and the defense attorneys deliver their closing arguments (informe verbal).
Within days or weeks, the court issues the verdict. This sentence can then be appealed by the Public Prosecutor, the private prosecution, or the defense.
Victim testimony in sexual offences
Evidentiary scope, credibility standards and constitutional limits
In offences against sexual freedom, the victim’s testimony frequently occupies a central position within the evidentiary structure of the proceedings.
By their very nature, such offences are often committed in private settings, without eyewitnesses and without audiovisual recordings. This particular feature has led case law to consolidate a specific doctrine regarding the evidentiary value of a sole testimony.
Can a conviction be issued when the only evidence is the complainant’s statement?
The Spanish Supreme Court has repeatedly answered this question in the affirmative. However, such a possibility is subject to a particularly demanding standard of evaluation, which serves as a safeguard against convictions based on unverified assertions.
The victim’s testimony as sufficient evidence for conviction
The presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 24.2 of the Spanish Constitution requires that any criminal conviction be grounded on valid evidence, obtained with full respect for procedural guarantees and open to adversarial challenge.
Within this framework, the Supreme Court has established that the victim’s testimony alone may constitute sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption, provided it meets specific reliability criteria.
This does not represent an exception to the evidentiary system, but rather the ordinary application of the principle of free assessment of evidence by the trial court (Article 741 of the Criminal Procedure Act), subject to rational and reasoned evaluation. Courts do not convict merely because a complaint has been filed, but because the testimony withstands a well-established three-fold credibility test developed in case law.
The three-part credibility test in case law
The classical doctrine of the Supreme Court requires the concurrence of three structural conditions:
This three-part standard constitutes the core reasoning upon which judgments in this field are built and challenged.
The importance of immediacy and qualitative assessment
In sexual offence cases, the evaluation of evidence acquires a particularly qualitative dimension. The trial court analyses not only the content of the narrative but also the manner in which it is delivered.
Confidence in the account, spontaneity, the ability to respond to questioning without incurring material contradictions and emotional coherence form part of the overall credibility assessment.
The principle of immediacy plays a decisive role. The court that directly hears the testimony benefits from perceptive elements that cannot be fully reproduced on appeal. For this reason, appellate review is limited where the conviction is grounded on the direct assessment of witness testimony.
The absence of corroborative evidence
Although the victim’s testimony alone may suffice, case law generally attaches positive weight to the existence of peripheral corroboration.
Such elements need not independently prove the offence, but they may reinforce the plausibility of the narrative: subsequent messages, witnesses who observed the complainant’s immediate emotional state, medical reports compatible with the account or objective data concerning the location of the parties.
The complete absence of corroboration does not prevent conviction, but it raises the level of rigor required in judicial reasoning.
Interpretative risks and limits
Recognising the evidentiary value of a sole testimony does not entail a reversal of the burden of proof nor an automatic presumption of truthfulness. The statement must be examined under the same standards of rational evaluation applicable to any other form of personal evidence.
The risk lies in two equally problematic extremes: trivialising the victim’s testimony on the basis of prejudicial assumptions, or granting it quasi-absolute value without subjecting it to proper adversarial scrutiny.
Criminal proceedings require balance. The protection of sexual freedom cannot be achieved at the expense of eroding structural defence guarantees. Equally, the presumption of innocence cannot become an insurmountable obstacle in offences which, by their nature, rarely produce external direct evidence.
Final reflection
In offences against sexual freedom, the victim’s testimony often constitutes the backbone of the proceedings.
It may be sufficient to sustain a conviction, but only where it withstands rigorous scrutiny in terms of credibility, coherence and consistency, duly reasoned in the judgment.
The decisive factor is not the quantity of evidence, but its quality and the solidity of the judicial reasoning that integrates it.
In this context, procedural technique, careful preparation of cross-examination and the structured development of evidentiary strategy become absolutely determinative.