A.J. AND L.E. v. SPAIN

• Judgment Date: 23 October 2025
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:1023JUD004031223
• Counsel: Beaumont Aristu, Jose Luis
• Date: 23 October 2025
• Application Number: 40312/23;40388/23
• Court: Fifth Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: España
• Applied Rules: 3;8;8-1;41

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF A.J. AND L.E. v. SPAIN

(Applications nos. 40312/23 and 40388/23)

JUDGMENT

Art 3 and Art 8 (procedural) • Positive obligations • Authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into applicants’ complaints of sexual assault involving chemical submission • Systematic loss and destruction of potentially crucial evidence whilst in police custody not counter-balanced by other investigative measures • Insufficient guarantees of independence • Manifestly inadequate response to investigative failures

Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.

STRASBOURG

23 October 2025

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of A.J. and L.E. v. Spain,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Kateřina Šimáčková, President,
María Elósegui,
Gilberto Felici,
Diana Sârcu,
Mykola Gnatovskyy,
Vahe Grigoryan,
Sébastien Biancheri, judges,
and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 40312/23 and 40388/23) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Spanish nationals, A.J. and L.E. (“the applicants”), on 3 November 2023;

the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into sexual assault;

the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns the alleged failure of the Spanish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ complaints of sexual assault by means of chemical submission, as well as the subsequent loss and manipulation of crucial evidence held in police custody. The applicants complained in particular under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

1. THE FACTS

2. The applicants live in Pamplona. They were represented by José Luís Beaumont Aristu, a lawyer practising in Pamplona.

3. The Government were represented by José Antonio Jurado Ripoll, Co‑Agent.

4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

1. ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULTS

5. On the night of 7 to 8 December 2016 the applicants went to a bar in Pamplona. According to their account, they met two men, D.C.M. and R.G.S., with whom they drank alcohol. The applicants alleged that from the time they were at the bar until they awoke the following morning, they had no recollection of events.

6. The applicants stated that they regained consciousness the following morning in the residence of one of the men, finding themselves undressed and with the physical sensation of having engaged in sexual intercourse. They alleged that they had been subjected to chemical submission through the administration of substances that rendered them unconscious and unable to consent to sexual acts.

7. On 11 December 2016, the first applicant (A.J.) attended a health centre for medical examination. The medical report noted the absence of genital lesions but activated the protocol for cases of suspected sexual assault involving chemical submission, resulting in notification to the police. The second applicant (L.E.) did not seek immediate medical attention.

2. POLICE INVESTIGATION AND LOSS OF EVIDENCE

8. Following receipt of the medical report, the National Police Family and Women’s Unit (UFAM) commenced an investigation.

9. On 27 December 2016 the police arrested D.C.M. and R.G.S. On 29 December 2016, Investigating Court No. 4 of Pamplona questioned both men, who acknowledged having had sexual intercourse with the applicants but maintained that it had been consensual. The court imposed restraining orders against both men prohibiting them from approaching the applicants.

10. The case was then transferred to Investigating Court No. 1 of Pamplona, where formal criminal proceedings were opened on 3 January 2017.

11. During the course of the investigation, it emerged that R.G.S. was the brother-in-law of a police officer assigned to the UFAM unit responsible for investigating the case.

12. In addition, several pieces of potentially crucial evidence subsequently disappeared or were compromised while in police custody. Firstly, the full forensic report derived from the analysis of R.G.S.’s mobile telephone, which had been prepared by the...