Justice seems impartial.

There's nothing missing from the law, just justice.

The judge accuses him of "not having tightly closed his legs." Is it not enough to say no?

He's not the no. The victim does not have to put his or her life at risk. What you have to count on is that she said no and that she was raped by a stranger or by a friend who was with him drinking a beer. The question of whether the judge of Vitoria closed his legs well sends the theory of no. To better understand it, I always set the example of the “elevator rapist”, who was released from prison before serving the sentence and who, upon leaving, raped 54 women in Valladolid and 11 in Salamanca and killed two. He said to the women phrases like “if you want me to kill you”, “if you face me I will kill you”, as his family told me. Everyone listened to those phrases and all raped them, but everyone else is at least alive.

Resistance or survival.

Those who defended themselves were heroes, but their parents didn't want heroes, they wanted their living daughters. Women don't have to risk life when raped, I just have to say no. And that's why these kinds of sentences clearly show the lack of sensitivity and training. They don't know what it is to be raped. You would never think of it that way if you knew it.

The judge was a woman.

The other day I was asked if I would make such a statement if I were a man, and I frankly answered no. It would not happen to a judge to pronounce those statements, because he knows they would devour them, not for nothing. The statements have been made by one woman and only we have raised our voices.

Excuses have often been used to justify violations, such as the way women dress. But similar justifications are significant in the mouth of a judge.

I remember that in Catalonia there was a case called “miniskirt of Catalonia”, in which the presence of the woman dressed as a gonlover conditioned the judgment. Another case in Murcia. The judge did not condemn the aggressor, as before the rape the victim was seen kissing in a bar with his aggressor. There were two senseless judgments, and that's why we started the "No, no, no," campaign that the institutions have also used.

Can the judicial process be a second stage of violence?

Yes. They make you feel guilty, instead of asking it with a few questions and a lot of care and sensitivity, they ask you one question after another. It is unacceptable, because we have a status as a victim in which the attitude it should have with it is clearly expressed, especially in terms of mistreatment and rape. The Clara Campoamor association denounced in Vitoria-Gasteiz the disappearance of a paragraph from the text presented by the young woman.

You mentioned the questionnaires.

The interrogation must be done to the aggressor, not to the victim. The victim shows everything that happened when the complaint was filed, from there the questions should be addressed to the aggressor. In the end, the judge may have doubts, and then, in order to verify what happened, I do not think it would be wrong to ask a few questions to the victim. But once questioned the aggressor, and of course, after reading the summary. Because I think this judge in Vitoria-Gasteiz hasn't even read the complaint.

The process is only just beginning with the denunciation.

He filed the complaint with the Vitoria-Gasteiz Municipal Police, who reported in detail what happened over and over again. He was summoned to court at 11:00 a.m. and was summoned at 16:00 p.m. At that time, he stayed alone in a closed, windowless room, and fortunately, at least he waited in a room that isn't always like that. Sometimes they leave you in the hallways and you have to see the aggressor and his relatives pass over and over again.

And finally, judgment.

Yes. And also, if you heard nothing more than closing your feet. It is intolerable and, as if that were not enough, they did not give him any order of withdrawal. What then served the whole process? Guarantees must be given to the victim, and such judgments cannot guarantee guarantees.

Justice seems to put the magnifying glass on the target and not on the aggressor.

As mentioned above, the questions to the victim are repeated. The aggressor’s lawyer wants to question his word and, if that were not enough, the judge often plays the same role as well. If a woman denounces the aggression in the Municipal Police, asks for help from an association, goes to the trial, spends all day in the court and has answered all the necessary questions to prove that she has been attacked, how can the judge answer that way? I don't know what training I was going to receive, but it's a pity.

You mentioned training. What are the deficiencies of the judges?

There are two main keys: training and the selection process. For professionals involved in this type of process, it should be essential to have a concern about the subject and, of course, to have the necessary training. On the other hand, I believe that prosecutors play a fundamental role in such cases and are not doing their best trabajo.La Public Prosecutor’s Office, for its part, represents the rule of law and, therefore, the victim. But in the CAPV, at least, they do not represent correctly. It is she who has to ask for measures to protect the aggressor – restraining orders, convictions… – and the victim does not have to know, she only has to tell what she has sucedido.Ejemplo of it is what happened with the monk Saholin, who was convicted for murdering two women, but was not convicted for brutally assaulting five or six women, which was the prosecution’s fault.