The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the sentence of 16 years in prison cagainst the doctor Carlos Enrique Avila p.or aggravated violent carnal access against an elderly woman in the municipality of Tulua, Valle del Cauca.
According to the file, the crime occurred in the morning of August 25, 2015. By then, the woman was 70 years old and accompanied his sister to the Ávila office, who practiced as an acupuncturist.
The older adult had stated that she was suffering from neck pain, so the doctor suggested that she perform some massages, making her go to the office and laying her on a stretcher.
“It was a massage, apparently, based on their presumed knowledge of the practice of ancient Chinese medicine and, taking advantage of the situation of superiority that his status as a doctor gave him, he touched sexual content in their private parts”, detailed the magistrate Hugo Quintero Bernate, rapporteur of the sentence.
The doctor’s defense tried to distort the victim’s testimony, arguing an alleged ‘complacent attitude’ or approval of sexual practice because the older adult did not scream, did not ask for help or alert her relatives who were waiting outside the office.
However, the Court determined that “constitutes an argument based on stereotypes of sexist discrimination which omits, among other things, considering that a sexual assault like the one she suffered could well have generated some kind of shock or state of emotional inhibition that It prevented me from reacting.”
In addition, he indicated that sexual violation “occurred in an environment of disadvantage and subjugation, against the will of the victimwas not consented or participatory and the self-determination of women did not affect their future.”
On the other hand, the Court took into account the gender perspective in the decision. He said that it is not a tool that “replaces the standard of evidence required to convict,” as the defendant’s defense stated, but rather “reference is made to criteria that make it possible to notice inequalities, in the present case in the evaluation of evidence, which affected directly the rights of the victim, subject to special protection given his condition of vulnerability and evident imbalance before the aggressor”, he indicated.