“Don’t you have any inclinations that you don’t feel comfortable with?” “Doesn’t he have any unconfessed exhibitionist inclinations?” These are some of the questions that one of the defense lawyers asked during his interrogation a few days ago of Gisèle Pelicot, the French woman raped by dozens of men with the complicity of her husband, Dominique Pelicot, who provided her with medication without her consent that left them on the verge of a coma. Gisèle decided to hold the trial behind closed doors and show her face, contradicting the usual instructions of the courts to protect victims, precisely because she wanted to face the stigma and shame. However, the questions and comments exceeded their patience and of course served to show how far the revictimization of those who suffer sexual violence can go.
But what is revictimization? Olga Barroso, a psychologist specializing in gender-based violence, explains that when a victim who has suffered violence and therefore a traumatic process, has to tell what they have experienced, they relive the same suffering. If, in telling it, the person receiving it shows empathy and closeness to the story, it “will be healing”. If, on the other hand, their experience is received with coldness, criticism or harshness, “it will be re-traumatic and revictimized”.
“Even more so if the other person seeks in some way to link your behaviour to what happened to you,” he says. Barroso assures that it is not a question of judges or lawyers being “loving”, but rather of showing an “empathetic expression” and caution, and that the processes are guided by a more psychological and traumatic perspective.
In Gisèle Pelicot’s case, the lack of empathy came early. The judge spoke of “sexual acts” at the beginning of the trial—a term the woman objected to—a defense attorney yelled at her and asked her insistent questions about her consent, and another questioned her about her “inclinations” or drinking habits. “I feel humiliated since I entered this room, they call me an alcoholic, an accomplice… it takes a lot of patience to listen to what I hear,” Gisèle said these days. The cover of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo also referred to the victim in a caricatured and ridiculous way.
Lawyer Laia Serra says that revictimization does not only have to do with the questions asked in a trial, but also with the delay in the procedure, with the information that is or is not given to the victim so that they know how the case will go to trial and how they can prepare psychologically, with the protection of their identity or image, or with the treatment they receive from officials… “We have examples in which their privacy ends up being destroyed,” he adds.
Some of these cases are widely known, from the survivor of the pack to the victim of footballer Dani Alves. The former had to endure having her identity revealed on the Internet, having photos of the case circulated, having one of the defense teams have a detective follow her for a while, or even having her way of sitting questioned at trial. In the case of the latter, the footballer’s family also revealed his identity and, when the process began, they waived any possible compensation so that no one doubted his word.
Appropriate questions without an aggressive tone
However, Serra believes that things have changed in Spain as a result of the “La Manada” case, the feminist mobilization and the “Only Yes Means Yes” law. “The introduction of the concept of “institutional violence” also helped institutions understand that the ball was in their court. Yes, the things we see in the Pélicot case continue to happen here, but my perception is that now they depend more on the bad actions of the lawyers who intervene in the process than on the judiciary or the prosecution,” he says. The lawyer has witnessed assaults and fights in courtrooms or heard how a defense lawyer asked a woman if she “had enjoyed” during the events, and stresses that the courts should intervene more in these cases and adopt a “more victimological” approach.
Paz Lloria, professor of criminal law at the University of Valencia, points out that defenders can use “all the elements at their disposal” to best defend their clients, “but of course trying to be as respectful as possible with everyone.” parties. “You can ask questions about the voluntary nature of an act but in a respectful tone, and questions about certain circumstances only have a place if they concern the procedure,” explains Lloria, who says that, however, in this type of case, they sometimes continue to make inappropriate comments or questions. The professor emphasizes the need to include the gender perspective in the work of all operators during the processes.
Laia Serra confirms that the right to defense allows for deeper interrogations to assess the facts and the credibility of the victims, but that there are “inappropriate” questions and tones: “We demonstrate that we can make judgments about sexual violence without failing to comply. side.” From the accusations, he continues, they can also take advantage, for example, of racist prejudices “and we do not do it because it is unethical.”
All these statements make Gisèle Pélicot’s attitude more of an exception to the rule of what the majority of victims are able to face. The expert on violence Olga Barroso highlights the need to guarantee psychological support “from a gender perspective” so that women can face the ordeals with less pain and better prepared, and overcome them without causing them more suffering. “And that there is a more psychological and traumatic perspective in the processes. If they know that saying it will take them back to a very deep hell, they will not do it,” he concludes.
