Eeklo (Brussels morning newspaper) -A man in the Eeklo was acquitted of rape due to the lack of non -consent proof. Despite the women’s wounds and memory loss, the court ruled that both were too drunk for their certainty.
As Vrt News reported, a man has been acquired of rape. 2 years ago, a woman from Eeklo, in the province of West Flanders, Belgium, reported a rape after a night he could not remember. She with an old co -worker and took drinks. Then he passed out.
The next morning after the incident, the woman woke up at home, annoyed. His clothes was torn and Kured was. The doctors saw bruises and swelling. Police found empty glasses, had drunk at home. The man had homework that night with a friend.
They drink more, and then the friend left. The woman and the man were very drunk. The woman went to a center of sexual violence, where doctors found injuries. The researchers confirmed that drinking had continued at home. The man and the woman were very drunk.
Did the court find sufficient evidence of non -consent in the case of eeklo violation?
Despite the injuries and the loss of women’s memory, the man was declared not guilty. The court said there was not enough evidence that has done anything wrong. The court knew that the woman was unintelling and did not remember. There were no witnesses after the friend left.
The man said nothing bad happened. Both were very drunk, which made it difficult to know if she agreed. Just although there was sex evidence, the court could not say with certainty that it was not right. The man said they began to flirt, which led to sex, and he would have stopped if she had objected.
He said she approached him, so he must have the leg arranged. The judge did not pay attention to what the man said or what happened, agreed for him. Rather, the court ruling was made about whether or not it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman could not give her consent.
The judge concluded that it was not possible to demonstrate that the sexual act occurred without his consent, especially since there was no evidence that shows that the woman was too intoxicated to make or express decisions. The court said that drinking alcohol, even much, does not mean that someone cannot consent to sex.
The verdict stated that IFY drinks are still responsible for their actions. Loodering inhibitions due to alcohol does not mean that a person loses his free will. The court said that unless it is clear that someone was so drunk that he could not make a decision, the consent cannot be fired just because alcohol.
“The fact that someone can regret or experience negative feelings on the actions to which he or she had agreed, at the time he committed them, does not constitute a criterion to label those actions as punishable, “
The verdict additional states.
