The fourth division of the Pontevedra County Court acquitted a suspect accused of abusing a minor he met on the social network Instagram. During the events, in 2019, the suspect was 21 years old and the girl was 14. In the sentence, the court reported that they had an emotional affair and had sexual intercourse during that time, “freely and voluntarily accepted by the minor on at least two occasions.” In addition, the accused and the young “similar degree of maturity identify sexually.
The court’s ruling focused on the nature of the relationship that developed from online contact, noting that an emotional bond formed between the two and that sexual relations occurred during a period when the minor was under 16. The judges highlighted that the facts were not framed by evidence of deceit through social networks aimed at sexual exploitation, but rather by an alleged pattern of consent within a dating relationship. The decision references a provision in the Criminal Code that can excuse criminal liability if certain conditions are met and if the minor’s free consent is established alongside a lack of significant age or developmental differences. The judges underscore that such a defense requires proof of the minor’s voluntary decision and a closely matched level of maturity between the two individuals. This interpretation hinges on demonstrating both elements clearly in the case records. (Source: Court documents marked in the formal decision; attribution to legal authorities.)
“There is no basis to conclude that the accused initiated contact with the minor through social networks with the aim of sexual intercourse or that the minor was asked to send intimate photos,” the judges stated. The account notes that the charge rests on the results of a criminal liability exemption clause tied to the minor’s free consent under the age of 16, as defined by the Criminal Code, when the involved person is close in age and development to the minor. The court remarks that the free decision of the minor must be established and that there must be no meaningful age or development gap that would undermine the minor’s autonomy. The ruling emphasizes that the legal analysis requires ensuring that consent was present and not coerced by any adult influence or dominance. (Attribution: official court ruling and accompanying explanatory notes.)
“Both the defendant and the minor described a relationship that began on social networks and progressed into a dating connection that ended when the minor’s father intervened,” the decision notes. The report stresses that even with the minor’s age, there are no indications that consent was impaired or that the minor’s capacity to consent was diminished by any factor connected to the defendant’s actions. It also notes the absence of signs of fear or intimidation linked to the accused, and that no evidence showed the minor’s abilities were compromised by the defendant’s conduct. The judges reiterate that the overall assessment points to a voluntary and unpressured dynamic between the two parties. (Source: Court documentation; official summarization.)
The court’s conclusion points to a resemblance beyond physical appearance, noting similarities in maturity and in the way both individuals were developing emotionally. A psychological expert report produced by the Imelga team concluded that the two parties shared a corresponding degree of maturity necessary for a sexual relationship. The assessment helped underpin the court’s determination that the couple’s interactions could be viewed within the context of a consensual relationship at the time. The document references the clinical observation that the individuals involved presented comparable levels of development, which informed the overall understanding of their exchanges and their capacity to consent. (Psychological evaluation: cited as part of the case review.)