14-year sentence for simultaneous rape in Bilbao: doubts over evidence

14-year sentence for simultaneous rape in Bilbao: the evidence that divides

On 26 February, the Second Section of the Biscay Court sentenced two young men to 14 years in prison for raping a young woman "simultaneously" in Bilbao. The ruling, reported by several media, states that the victim was treated as "a mere object or a doll" while her will was annulled by alcohol.

The case, which has sparked intense debate, presents a controversial medical fact. The complainant tested positive for traseril gonorrhoea, which led her to file the complaint. However, the two accused tested negative in tests carried out months later. The infection has an incubation period of three to five days, which raises questions about the time of contagion. Could she have transmitted the disease to them? Or were they treated before the tests? These questions remain unanswered in the sentence.

---

The facts and the sentence

According to the judicial account, the events occurred at the home of one of the accused after a night of partying. The young woman, whose identity remains anonymous, filed a complaint in August after receiving the medical diagnosis. The expert evidence for the accused was carried out in November, yielding negative results. The court considered that the victim's testimony was coherent and supported by "peripheral corroborations", without specifying which.

The defence alleged that the relations were consensual and that the complaint was an attempt to punish the young men for the infection. The judge, however, considered the victim's version credible.

The gonorrhoea dilemma

The most conflicting point of the case is the discrepancy in the tests. While she has the infection, they do not. Medical literature indicates that traseril gonorrhoea can be detected between three and five days after contagion. If the accused were the transmitters, they should have tested positive or received prior treatment. None of these points was clarified at the hearing.

Some experts point out that it is possible that the young men self-medicated or that the infection was pre-existing. Others argue that the absence of the bacteria in them does not rule out the assault, but it does weaken the key evidence.

Implications for justice

The case reopens the debate on the standard of proof in sensual offences. In a context where alcohol annuls the will, the credibility of the testimony becomes the central pillar. But without direct forensic evidence, the conviction generates unease among those who defend the presumption of innocence.

The sentence is final, but the medical contradiction remains unresolved. The case, which has already transcended the courts, will probably be cited in future discussions on the assessment of evidence and the protection of victims.