Criminal Court No. 1 of Cartagena issued a sentence in December 2022. Based on the established facts in the report, it was revealed that the accused and the woman were romantically involved and cohabited in the slum area of Los Alcázares during 2022. In August of the following year, after a dispute over a tablet, the man allegedly struck her on the stomach and hips with several blows.
In the early hours of August 22, after another argument this time at a friend’s home where they had spent the night, the disagreement arose when the woman refused to engage in sexual relations. The court document notes the man’s insult, calling her a derogatory name, and then throwing her to the ground.
The woman described the harm she endured, and four months later the court delivered its decision: nine months of imprisonment for ill-treatment and a two-year ban on approaching the complainant. A compensation payment of 280 euros was ordered.
The court acknowledged that the woman’s psychological disorders do not diminish the credibility of her statements
The defendant appealed the ruling. He argued that the woman had blamed him for ending the relationship, asserting that she suffered from two conditions: borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder. He claimed that these psychiatric issues affected the reliability of her statements.
The fear of losing the relationship
The defense lawyer for the man argued that his client was influenced by the fear of losing the relationship, citing communications and prior complaints that pointed to a pattern of controlling behavior. The defense suggested that the accused was reacting to perceived manipulation or abandonment, which could have intensified his responses in the course of the relationship.
The defense further asserted that a psychiatric colleague of the victim had testified that she had told him she would cause harm to her ex-partner due to feeling abandoned.
In rejecting the objection, the District Court explained that, regarding the first incident, the victim consistently maintained her account in all statements: she was on the mattress when she was kicked in the stomach and hips several times. Because the mattress was close to the wall, she struggled to free herself, using her legs to push away.
Regarding the early morning incident on August 22, the court noted that the defendant admitted another argument, even though he initially claimed there was no dispute. He eventually said, “We argued because I wanted to go to Madrid.” The complainant supplied a detailed account describing the insults she endured and how the defendant threw her to the ground, which the court found to be corroborated by her testimony.
The court also observed bruises on the complainant two days after the incident, noting these injuries aligned with her reported account. While the defendant’s narrative did align with the events, the court recognized that both parties described the same setting and circumstances, supported by visible injuries and corroborated by law enforcement observation. The evidence suggested the accused might have committed two counts of assault and one count of minor insult, yet only one count of assault was filed, leading to a single conviction in that regard.
The court emphasized that the woman’s psychological disturbances did not invalidate the value of her statements, unless an expert report could show that those disorders affected the ability to perceive or evaluate events accurately.
Overall, the case reflects how testimony from a victim with mental health considerations is weighed alongside physical evidence and documentary records, ensuring a fair assessment within the legal framework. The decision underscores the principle that psychological conditions, in themselves, do not automatically diminish the credibility of a survivor’s account, a point that remains relevant for similar cases across jurisdictions in North America and elsewhere. [Citation: Court record, December 2022; case materials and subsequent appeals notes.
]