The Supreme Court has upheld a prison term of eight years and six months for a man found guilty of raping a woman multiple times on a field near Aranda de Duero in Burgos. After the assaults, he asked the victim if they were friends and whether they could meet again later.
The incidents began in the early hours of April 25, 2021. On that night, the offender attended a party at a farm in Aranda alongside several others, including the woman who would become the victim, following a dispute with his partner about infidelity at a bar.
Following the party, the defendant offered to drive the victim and her friend to Aranda. After dropping off his companion, he claimed they would stop for a drink, then steered to a location that proved to be a dark road near Casa de Campo. There, he attempted to kiss the victim, who refused, prompting a violent confrontation. The assailant dragged her from the car by her hair, forced her to the ground, and, despite her resistance, forced himself on her before attempting to disengage briefly, only to seize her again and continue the assault.
threatening attitude
The perpetrator then opened a car door and dragged the woman toward a nearby picnic area where the rape continued. Fearing for her life and due to his aggressive manner, she chose to stay calm and engage him in a reassuring dialogue, hoping he would end the aggression and return her home. He insisted that they were friends and suggested they meet again, prompting her to respond that nothing had happened and that she would agree to nothing more in the future.
Following this exchange, the man escorted her to his residence, where she called emergency services and was subsequently transported to a hospital by the police. The Burgos Court initially sentenced him to six years in prison. The High Court of Justice of Castilla y León later increased the sentence to eight years and six months after examining the victim’s appeal and finding the evidence compelling in a case of sexual assault.
Most recently, the Supreme Court confirmed the higher sentence, underscoring the witness’s consistent and credible testimony while noting that the defendant’s account that intoxication and consensual relations occurred did not hold against the established facts. The court highlighted the victim’s persistent narrative as the key factor in determining guilt and the appropriate punishment, rejecting arguments that the events were long before and thus less serious.
The ruling emphasizes the gravity of repeating sexual offenses and the impact of the offender’s coercive conduct and secrecy surrounding the events. While the framework of the sentence remains within the range typical for such offenses given the circumstances, the court’s decision reiterates that justice looks closely at the lived experience of the survivor and the corroborating aspects of her account, rather than the offender’s denials. The verdict aligns with the broader principle that sexual violence is a severe breach of personal autonomy and safety, warranting a substantial penalty and a thorough, victim-centered judicial assessment. The authorities suggest that the severity reflects the ongoing effects on the victim and the clandestine nature of the crime at the time it occurred, ensuring accountability under the law and safeguarding public trust in the justice system.
In each phase of the litigation, authorities stressed the importance of consistency and credibility in the testimony of the survivor, which ultimately guided the decision to sustain the eight-year and six-month sentence. The case illustrates how the courts weigh eyewitness accounts and the evolution of legal standards in handling serious sexual offenses, reinforcing the message that consent cannot be presumed in situations involving coercion, threats, or manipulation. The decision serves as a reminder that the legal system seeks to balance accountability with the protection of survivors, while also applying proportionate penalties that reflect both the harm suffered and the circumstances surrounding the act.
The court’s judgment reiterates the principle that the dynamics of coercion and intimidation played a decisive role in the assault. It also notes that the location and timing of the events contributed to the vulnerability of the victim, reinforcing the need for robust measures to deter such crimes and support victims through judicial processes. Overall, the outcome reaffirms the state’s commitment to upholding victims’ rights, delivering meaningful consequences for perpetrators, and maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. [Citation: Burgos Judicial District records and official ruling summaries]