Can I Be Convicted Without Evidence in Spain?

When an accusation can ruin your life

Sexual crimes and domestic violence usually occur in private, without eyewitnesses or conclusive physical evidence. This creates a situation where, in many cases, the only evidence is the statement of the alleged victim. If you have been falsely accused, you may wonder: can they convict me without evidence? The answer is not simple, but it is clear: without real evidence, there should be no conviction.

However, the judicial reality in Spain has shown that, in certain cases, convictions have been handed down based exclusively on the complainant’s version, without objective evidence to support it. Therefore, having an experienced criminal defense attorney in domestic violence and sexual crimes is crucial to avoid an unjust sentence. The entire trial will focus on proving whether or not there was consent.

In this article, we will explain under what circumstances they may attempt to convict you without evidence and what criteria the Supreme Court follows to evaluate statements in cases of domestic violence and sexual crimes.

Can the victim’s statement

The risk of being convicted without evidence in sexual crimes and domestic violence

One of the biggest problems in proceedings for sexual crimes and domestic violence is the lack of direct evidence. Unlike other crimes where there are witnesses, forensic evidence or material proof, these cases usually depend solely on the testimony of the alleged victim.

This poses a serious problem: if judges do not apply strict criteria, the mere fact of being accused could land you in prison, without the need for conclusive evidence.

The criterion for evaluating the victim’s statement as the sole evidence for prosecution borders on the risk this poses to the presumption of innocence and the defendant’s right to defense.

Danger of burden of proof reversal in sexual crimes and domestic violence

One of the main risks that the Supreme Court identifies in these cases is the reversal of the burden of proof, contrary to the fundamental principle of criminal procedure:

«It is the prosecution’s responsibility to prove the defendant’s guilt, not the defendant’s responsibility to prove their innocence«.

When the only evidence for prosecution is the accuser’s statement, the defendant is left in a defenseless situation, as they are de facto forced to prove their innocence, which violates the presumption of innocence. This risk is aggravated when:

• The victim is the only evidence for the prosecution.
• There is no other evidentiary element that supports the existence of the crime.
• The accusation is based exclusively on the complainant’s word, without peripheral corroborating evidence