Five residents of Riola were acquitted by Judge Valencia in a case that had accused them of sexual harassment and a second offense related to moral integrity. The accusation stemmed from a complaint by a woman who claimed she was harassed while leaving a nudist beach area near Mareny de Sant Llorenç, in Cullerat. According to the prosecutor, the complainant described an encounter on the way to a parking lot, where she alleged a man touched her hip and made threatening remarks suggesting sexual acts. The statements were based on the woman’s own account.
The details reported by Upgrade-EMV, a media outlet tied to the same group as this newspaper, referenced an account from June 15, 2019, noting that the incident involved a woman walking toward a parking area near a wooden walkway that crosses the dunes. The prosecutor, who has announced plans to appeal the acquittals, argued in court that the defendants acted alone or in concert, and with a sensual attitude. The complainant allegedly passed the defendants as she entered the parking lot, and accelerated her steps when one of them was about to speak. One defendant reportedly lowered his pants and showed his genitalia, while another asked a passerby for help.
The magistrate ruled that the five defendants should be acquitted because the woman’s story was not found credible. The judge noted that the woman’s account did not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, even though she might have believed certain aspects of the events. The defense was led by Vicente Boluda and Andres Zapata from the Zapata-Boluda firm. In the ruling, the judge underscored the defendants’ consistent denial as part of the broader pattern of evidence, a trait commonly seen among accused individuals.
Denying the allegations, doubt and credibility
Public testimonies show the defendants consistently denied directing the alleged statements or committing the acts claimed by the complainant. They admitted one remark about attire being more suitable in a swimsuit, while they dismissed other actions that supposedly violated the complainant’s dignity. When asked if someone had touched them or if they had shown themselves, the defendants stated those claims were untrue. They disputed the sequence and details of the events, arguing that the descriptions did not match what actually happened.
On the other hand, the court scrutinized the eruption of differences in the complainant’s story. The prosecutor contended that the wording used in the complaint and in later statements varied, and the judge treated those inconsistencies as relevant rather than irrelevant. The judge also weighed the testimony given to authorities at various points, including the police report and medical examinations, though some of those details were not relied upon to convict the defendants.
The judge highlighted the fact that different terms describing touching appeared in reports before different authorities, suggesting a lack of fixed and permanent recollection over time. The assessment considered how the complainant later described the physical contact in relation to the positions of the defendants at the time. The judge also noted that the accused were present at a public area with spectators and that the surrounding circumstances could influence perceptions.
The defense argued that the defendants maintained a uniform denial and that, in the absence of firm, corroborating evidence, a conviction on the charges of sexual aggression or moral violation could not stand. The court’s cautious approach reflected concerns about the reliability of memories and the impact of social dynamics on witness accounts.
Consistent denial and the witness account
In parallel, the proceedings included accounts from a couple who witnessed the aftermath. The witnesses testified that the woman appeared terrified and distressed when seeking help near the parking area. They recalled discussions about feeling scolded and about unpleasant remarks directed toward the complainant. The witnesses described a group of men who seemed to be drinking and denied any aggressive behavior. Their testimony supported the defense’s portrayal of events as misinterpreted or exaggerated rather than deliberate harm.
Ultimately, the five acquitted defendants maintained a largely uniform narrative that they went out for a casual afternoon and, after a routine lunch, decided to visit the nudist beach as part of a lighthearted plan. One account suggested that remarks about appearance were made in a joking context, not with malicious intent. The court’s final decision acknowledged the repeated statements that the complainant appeared more attractive in certain attire, yet did not convict on charges related to moral integrity. The prosecutor has indicated an intention to pursue a different avenue of appeal for other possible offenses.
The acquittal leaves unresolved questions about how witnesses interpret ambiguous encounters in public spaces. It also raises broader concerns about the alignment between perceived behavior and the legal standards required to prove crimes of sexual nature or moral misconduct beyond reasonable doubt. The case underscores the delicate balance courts must strike when evaluating testimony, memory, and the credibility of all involved in sensitive allegations.