Andorra Women's Institute Slams Repeated Testimonies by Sexual Violence Victims

The Andorran Women's Institute has criticised ongoing cases where sexual violence victims must testify multiple times during legal proceedings, despite protocols designed to prevent such re-traumatisation.

In three recent trials for sexual violence at the Tribunal de Corts, victims were spared from giving oral testimony. Instead, the court accepted their statements from the investigation phase as valid evidence, sparing them the ordeal of reliving events years later before the judges. This approach forms part of evolved protocols aimed at protecting those affected.

Judith Pallarés, president of the Andorran Women's Institute, told Diari d'Andorra that victims should never have to testify more than once. She emphasised that re-victimisation occurs whenever women are forced to repeat their accounts, regardless of whether trials are held behind closed doors to shield their privacy. "The emotional toll happens every time a victim must reconstruct the facts before a new legal operator," she said.

The institute warns that some women still end up testifying up to three times over lengthy penal processes, leading to psychological exhaustion and, in certain instances, discouraging them from continuing. "Many want to turn the page and not constantly relive the traumatic situation," Pallarés added.

These recent cases demonstrate the system's capacity to use investigation-phase statements as "pre-constituted proof" with full validity at trial. The mechanism is enshrined in Law 1/2015 on eradicating gender-based and domestic violence, which strengthened victim protections and introduced procedural adaptations. The law also supports the Purple Code protocols for coordinated detection and intervention by social and institutional resources.

For the institute, the challenge now lies not in the legal framework but in its consistent, widespread application. Pallarés stressed that testifying only once should become the standard, not the exception, to ensure judicial processes do not inflict secondary suffering.