The Victim’s statement in Gender-Based Violence Proceedings and its Compatibility with the Presumption of Innocence
I. Summary.
This brief addresses the integration of the victim’s statement in criminal proceedings related to gender-based violence, focusing on its sufficiency to rebut constitutional right to the presumption of innocence under Spanish and European law.
II. Legal Framework.
– Spanish Constitution (Article 24.2): Guarantees the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
– European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6.2): Establishes the same presumption at the supranational level.
– Organic Law 1/2004 on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence: Governs the substantive and procedural framework of gender-based violence cases in Spain.
III. Evidentiary Role of the Victim’s Statement
Spanish courts have acknowledged that the victim’s testimony may constitute sufficient evidence for a conviction, particularly in gender-based violence cases where such testimony is often the principal or sole evidence. However, the reliance on the victim’s account is subject to stringent judicial safeguards to ensure respect for the presumption of innocence.
IV. Jurisprudential Requirements
The Supreme Court of Spain and the Constitutional Court have consistently held that a conviction based solely or primarily on the victim’s statement is valid only if the following three cumulative requirements are met:
- Internal and External Consistency (Veracity of Content)
The statement must be free of significant contradictions, both within itself and when compared with other known facts or evidence.
- Absence of Spurious Motives (Subjective Credibility)
The court must exclude the possibility that the victim is motivated by animosity, resentment, or personal gain, and that the accusation is not the result of fabrication or manipulation.
- Persistence in the Accusation (Temporal Credibility)
The complainant must maintain the same version of events over time, from the initial report to her in-court testimony, without relevant contradictions or omissions.
These criteria have been confirmed in numerous decisions, including STS 565/2020, STS 389/2021, and earlier doctrinal lines such as STS 1428/2002. The courts emphasize that these safeguards are not merely formalistic but essential to ensure that a conviction does not rest on uncorroborated or unreliable testimony.
V. Balancing Interests: Protecting the Victim vs. Ensuring Due Process
The jurisprudential doctrine seeks to balance two fundamental objectives:
– Effective protection of victims of gender-based violence, recognizing the evidentiary challenges and the often-private nature of such crimes.
– Preservation of due process and the presumption of innocence, ensuring that defendants are not convicted without minimum evidentiary guarantees.
Courts must therefore engage in a rigorous assessment of the victim’s statement, applying the three-fold veracity test above, before accepting it as the basis for a conviction.
VI. Conclusion
The victim’s statement plays a critical role in gender-based violence proceedings, but its admissibility and probative value are tightly constrained by jurisprudential doctrine. While such testimony may suffice for a conviction, this is only permissible where the statement meets the standards of consistency, absence of ulterior motives, and persistence, thereby preserving the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence.
KAPLAN LEGAL is formed by a team specialized in gender- based violence. We have experience in assessing and defending both, victims and men investigated for incurring in gender- based offences.