Andorra Court Hears Appeals in Rape Case Against Colombian Man

Andorra's Superior Court of Justice heard appeals on Wednesday from prosecutors and the defence against a six-year prison sentence imposed on a Colombian man convicted of raping his flatmate in Aixirivall last summer. The 31-year-old victim was also the partner of the man's employer, and the assault took place in their shared home.

The Corts court ruling under appeal set a total of six years in prison, with 20 months to be served immediately, a 12-year ban on contact with the victim, and 15 years' expulsion from Andorra. The 34-year-old defendant has been in custody since September 2024 and has nearly completed 19 months.

Prosecutors sought partial revocation of the sentence, requesting nine years in prison while keeping the no-contact order. They argued the original ruling suffered from inadequate justification in individualising the penalty, failing to properly account for the assault's severity. Key factors included the nighttime violence in the victim's bedroom—where the man allegedly immobilised her, grabbed her by the neck, and inserted his fingers into her vagina without consent—the shared living situation, the perpetrator's position of authority, and the victim's lasting psycho-emotional harm, as detailed in forensic reports. They criticised substituting much of the term with expulsion as a distortion tied to the man's foreign residency, which they said undermined the sentence's retributive and deterrent aims. The 20-month effective term, they contended, was erroneous, disproportionate, and insufficient.

The defence called for acquittal or nullification of the proceedings due to breaches of defence rights. Rejecting claims of flawed sentencing reasoning, the lawyer argued that mere disagreement with the outcome did not constitute a legal error. Their main challenge focused on the victim's pre-recorded testimony from the investigation phase, approved to prevent re-traumatisation but which replaced her trial appearance. This, they said, relied on generic justification and blocked cross-examination after other evidence emerged, including witness statements, final forensic reports, mobile phone data, and videos the victim filmed post-assault. Those recordings reportedly included phrases like "you tried to touch me" or "you tried to rape me," casting doubt on whether the assault occurred and whether it qualified as rape. The defence also highlighted inconsistencies in the victim's initial statements, witness accounts, and claimed psychological effects, as well as the legality of partial expulsion substitution under the penal code for terms under five years.

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