Tribunal de Andorra examina recursos en caso de condena por violación contra hombre colombiano

El Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andorra examinó este miércoles los recursos presentados tanto por la fiscalía como por la defensa contra la pena de seis años de prisión impuesta a un residente colombiano de 34 años condenado por violar a su compañera de piso en Aixirivall el pasado verano. La víctima, de 31 años, era también la pareja del empleador del hombre.

The Corts court ruling, now under challenge, imposed six years in prison—including 20 months to be served immediately—a 12-year ban on contact with the victim, and 15 years' expulsion from Andorra. The man has been in custody since September 2024 and has nearly completed 19 months.

Prosecutors argued the sentence lacked proper justification in its individualisation, failing to weigh the assault's gravity adequately. They highlighted the violence used, the shared home setting, the perpetrator's position of superiority, and the victim's subsequent psycho-emotional impact, as supported by forensic reports. They criticised replacing most of the term with expulsion as a distortion linked to the man's residency status, saying it undermined the punishment's retributive and deterrent purpose. They sought a partial revocation to impose nine years in prison while retaining the no-contact order.

The defence demanded acquittal or, alternatively, nullification of proceedings for breaching defence rights. The lawyer rejected claims of inadequate sentencing reasoning, stressing that disagreement with the outcome does not signify a legal defect. The core argument centred on the victim's pre-recorded testimony from the investigation phase, approved to avoid re-traumatisation and which replaced her trial appearance. This, they said, used generic justification and prevented cross-examination after other evidence surfaced, including witness statements, final forensic reports, mobile phone data, and videos the victim recorded post-assault. Those videos reportedly used phrases such as 'you tried to touch me' or 'you tried to rape me,' raising doubts about the assault's occurrence and its classification as rape. The defence also questioned inconsistencies in the victim's account, including initial statements, witness accounts, and alleged psychological sequelae.

After hearing submissions, the Superior Court adjourned the case for sentencing.