A brief two-year romantic relationship ended up in the Provincial Court after a young man was brought to trial on charges of continuous sexual assault and maltreatment of his ex-partner. Prosecutors are seeking more than a decade in prison, while the defendant maintains his innocence.
The alleged victim, who was his girlfriend at the time the complaint was filed three months after they separated, did not appear at the public hearing. Her absence was replaced by the deposition she gave at the Torrevieja courts during the investigation, where she described a pattern of near-constant fighting, jealousy, forced sex, and an obsessive, controlling attitude from the man.
She stated clearly in front of the examining judge that he dictated how she should dress, inspected her phone, picked her up at school, and did not permit her to go out. She was barely of legal age when she spoke during the inquiry, but her account left little room for doubt about the controlling dynamics she faced.
Among the restrictions she described were prohibitions against going to the gynecologist, since he claimed he wanted children and warned that if she went, he would provide her with some contraceptive. He also expected intercourse every day.
In the interest of protecting the relationship, she explained, they agreed on a schedule of intimacy that allowed three times a week: Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday. Yet there were occasions when she did not feel like it, even as he pressed for sexual contact.
The young man’s obsession with control extended to an incident when he found work at a fairground attraction. She was compelled to accompany him and wait on the stairs from six in the evening until three in the morning, unable even to take a break to stretch her legs or clear her mind.
She also recounted how, after she began working in a restaurant kitchen, he insulted her, calling her a whore and suggesting that her aim in going to work was to flirt with the cook there.
Lives controlled Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday
For the sake of the relationship, she explained, a calendar was drawn up for them to meet those days, even if she did not want to comply. The pattern of control and coercive behavior was a constant thread through the two years they lived together, spanning from March 2019 to May 2021, across three different living arrangements: at his parents’ home, at hers, and at a private apartment where they hoped the situation might improve.
The defense, requesting acquittal, argued that the defendant was the one who chose to end the relationship and noted the lack of direct witnesses—his mother only spoke to the examiner about what her daughter had told her. The prosecutor, while maintaining the original charge, pointed to contradictions in the complainant’s statements, suggesting that the claimant felt affection and sympathy for her abuser and implying that the sexual relationship had been unsatisfactory. The underlying motive, he suggested, was anger after the breakup rather than a desire to report real abuse.
There were assertions that the couple argued daily, yet when the relationship ended, she reportedly said that if he did not reconcile, he would harm himself and threaten to injure himself with a knife. The woman described the places where they lived together during those two years, emphasizing that they were three distinct environments used to shelter the deteriorating dynamic: the defendant’s parents’ home, the claimant’s parents’ home, and a private space they used when the situation seemed to momentarily improve.
The case has highlighted the challenges of proving coercive control when witnesses are few and the victim’s own testimony is the central memorial of the events. The defense emphasized that there were no direct witnesses to most of the incidents, relying heavily on the account provided by the complainant and her mother to the instructor during the investigation. The court will weigh these testimonies against the prosecution’s framework and determine whether the actions described constitute continuing sexual assault and domestic maltreatment under the applicable statute.
As the trial progressed, both sides faced the difficulty of presenting a coherent narrative from a relationship that spanned more than two years and included periods of separation, attempts at reconciliation, and repeated conflicts. The result hinges on the credibility of the complainant’s assertions and the absence or presence of corroborating evidence beyond her declaration and the medical or forensic examinations that may have been conducted in the course of the proceedings.
Observers note that the outcome will have broader implications for how courts assess patterns of coercive control in intimate relationships, especially when partners are no longer living together and when witnesses are scarce. The case underscores the heavy burden on prosecutors to demonstrate that coercive conduct persisted over time and that it rose to the level of criminal sexual aggression and domestic maltreatment. It also places emphasis on the protection of survivors who may feel pressure to stay silent or to downplay the severity of the abuse due to fear, stigma, or concerns about credibility in the courtroom.
In the coming days, the court will review the testimonies, evaluate the tendered evidence, and determine if the charges will stand or if a verdict of acquittal should be entered. The parties await the judge’s ruling, which will set the precise terms of any future proceedings and potential sentencing if guilt is established.