The Deputy Operational Director of the National Police is being investigated for acts that could constitute an alleged crime of sexual assault, following a complaint filed by a police officer with whom he allegedly had a previous relationship.
According to what is stated in the complaint, on April 23, 2025, the complainant, being on duty, would have been commissioned to pick up the investigated party at a catering establishment and transfer him to his official residence. Once there, always according to her account, the investigated party would have asked her to go up to the dwelling to talk about their personal relationship, to which she would have initially refused, finally agreeing after his insistence.
Already inside the home, the plaintiff maintains that a situation of pressure would have occurred in which the investigated party, allegedly, would have prevented her from leaving the place and would have performed acts of a sexual nature without her consent, despite the refusal that, according to her, she repeatedly expressed. Likewise, she refers to the existence of alleged subsequent messages of an intimidating nature.
For his part, the investigated party denies the facts and maintains that, from the full content of the audio provided, it would follow that he offered the complainant the possibility of leaving the home on several occasions. The defense likewise emphasizes the existence of a prior relationship between both and considers that the recording would reflect an interaction in a context of trust, questioning the interpretation and credibility of the account presented in the complaint.
From a strictly legal perspective, and always for the hypothetical case that the facts were to be considered proven, the facts could constitute a crime of sexual assault, in which consent is defined as that which is freely manifested through clear acts.
Within this framework, typicality can also include those cases in which, even if there is an appearance of consent, this could be conditioned by a situation of superiority or vulnerability of the victim that limits their decision-making capacity.
The alleged abuse of power
Now, the true legal debate lies in determining how it can be proven, in practice, that a situation of superiority effectively conditions the person's freedom of decision, and does not constitute a mere social influence lacking criminal relevance.
To that effect, the assessment should not be approached from extreme positions: neither demanding a degree of coercion comparable to that of intimidation, nor considering as abuse of power any circumstance that subjectively influences the decision, which would lead to an undue expansion of the criminal offense.
For this reason, the analysis must be situated on an objective and intersubjective plane, considering the existence of a relevant asymmetry between the parties and whether said position has been consciously taken advantage of to condition the will of the other person. This situation can derive from factors of various kinds, such as the work position (as is the present case) teaching, family, economic, age or other concurrent circumstances.
From this perspective, abuse of power is configured as an intermediate category between cases of violence or intimidation and those in which there is an inability to consent, operating in those cases in which the imbalance between the parties acts as an instrument to subdue the will and obtain contact of a sexual nature.
Likewise, it must be taken into account that this type of events usually occur in environments without the presence of third parties, which gives special relevance to the assessment of the complainant's statement, which may constitute sufficient incriminating evidence provided that it meets the jurisprudential criteria of credibility, persistence, and has peripheral corroborating elements.
Ultimately, the eventual legal assessment of the case will depend on the evidence that can be adduced in the procedure, both regarding the existence or non-existence of consent as well as, where appropriate, the possible incidence of a situation of superiority in the formation of will, the specific concurrent circumstances needing to be analyzed in accordance with the principles of presumption of innocence and evaluation of evidence.
