SEOUL: A coalition of civic groups filed a constitutional complaint Thursday (April 23) over a sexual violence case in which courts acquitted the defendant despite the alleged victim having repeatedly refused, arguing that the ruling violated constitutional rights including sexual self-determination.
The coalition, led by Lawyers for a Democratic Society and other advocacy groups, said at a press conference in front of the Constitutional Court in Seoul that the judgment infringed on the victim’s basic rights and reflected an outdated legal standard for rape.
According to the group, the victim in the case explicitly expressed refusal more than 75 times over the course of about an hour, with recordings and other physical evidence supporting the claim.
Even so, lower courts acquitted the defendant after applying a narrow interpretation of rape that requires violence or intimidation to have made resistance impossible or markedly difficult.
That doctrine, long upheld in Supreme Court precedent, has been criticized for setting too high a bar in rape cases.
While the top court has maintained the standard in rape rulings, more recent decisions in indecent assault cases have pointed to some movement away from that standard.
The acquittal became final last month after prosecutors declined to appeal, despite the victim’s request that they take the case to the Supreme Court.
Oh Ji-won, head of the coalition’s legal team, said the court had effectively given more weight to the defendant’s subjective assumption about the victim’s intent than to her repeated verbal refusals.
“The petitioner explicitly said 'no' more than 75 times over about an hour, and there is clear physical evidence including audio recordings,” Oh said.
“The court gave a free pass to the perpetrator’s arbitrary speculation about her inner intent rather than the dozens of clear refusals that came directly from the victim.”
Oh also said the narrow interpretation was rooted in an obsolete notion of female chastity that should have disappeared after a 1995 revision to the criminal code.
The coalition argued that the ruling fundamentally violated the victim’s rights to sexual self-determination, equality, dignity and a fair trial.
It urged the Constitutional Court to make clear that violations of sexual autonomy and personal dignity should be central to the legal standard for rape, and to present a unified interpretation that focuses on the victim’s active and explicit consent. - The Korea Herald/ANN
