The fifty-one co-defendants in the Pelicot trial were all found guilty by the Vaucluse Criminal Court on December 19, 2024.
The sentences range from twenty years to three years in prison.
Contrary to what was feared by some defense lawyers who were crying foul about media lynching and mass condemnation, the sentences of the co-defendants were individualized.
Dominique Pelicot was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
The four defendants who came to the Pelicot couple’s home six times were sentenced to sentences ranging from 15 to 13 years.
The five defendants who came to the Pelicot couple’s home twice were sentenced to sentences ranging from 10 to 8 years.
The two people who were sentenced to three years in prison were convicted of sexual assault and not rape – because there was no penetration.
If we compare cases that seem similar, the sentences were clearly increased when the accused also possessed child pornography images, when the accused had already been convicted of rape or domestic violence, when the accused had dangerous profiles or finally when the accused had functions that required them to be exemplary, due to their functions as soldier or prison guard.
The Pelicot decision is not, and will not be, published if I believe the Avignon tribunal contacted several times, because the decision contains too much sensitive information – even if it is always possible to anonymize the decision – which is normally the rule.
I will not publish – unlike the French newspaper Libération, the full names of the convicted – because I am not a journalist, but a lawyer and I am not sure that I can make the names of the accused public in light of the ethics of my profession.
Nevertheless, based on the few public pieces of information relating to each convict, it appears that some of them have themselves been victims of sexual violence, others have not. Some are in a relationship, others are not. Some possessed child pornography images, others did not. Some are very young, others are not. As Antoine Camus, one of Gisèle Pelicot’s lawyers, rightly said during his plea, no criterion unites the convicts. Except one: their free will when they enter the room in which Gisèle Pelicot sleeps.
Following the verdict, 17 convicts appealed, then 14, then 13 who still have the possibility of withdrawing their appeal before the Court of Assizes, which will be held in Nîmes from October 6 to November 21, 2025. Unlike the Vaucluse Criminal Court, which tried them, the Court of Assizes will see the convicts tried by three professional magistrates and nine citizen jurors.
Following the verdict, Dominique Pelicot (who is not appealing) was heard for two unresolved criminal cases for which he was indicted and for a third case of assault of a 60-year-old woman in 2004.
Following the verdict, a parliamentary report on the criminal definition of rape was presented to the French National Assembly on January 21, 2025 by two deputies, Marie-Charlotte Garin and Véronique Riotton. This report, in the works since the end of 2023, is accompanied by a bill presented on the same day.
Unsurprisingly, the parliamentary report and the bill propose to include the notion of non-consent in the criminal definition of rape and sexual assault and specify that consent must be specific, freely given and can be withdrawn at any time.
I am called a rapist because it contains this word: consent”
Simone M. during the Pelicot trial
In short, the parliamentary report and the bill propose to align the French legal definition of rape with that of the Istanbul Convention ratified by France on July 4, 2014. The criterion of surrounding circumstances (which appears in the Istanbul Convention) is proposed as a criterion for assessing the existence or absence of consent.
The main directions of the reform
1/ Introduce the notion of non-consent into the criminal definition of rape
The mission proposes to integrate the notion of non-consent into the criminal definition of rape and sexual assault. The absence of consent must make it possible to distinguish sexuality from violence. The new definition must specify that consent is specific, must be given freely and can be withdrawn at any time.
2/ Keep the four criteria of the current definition
That is to say the reference to the use of violence, threats, coercion and surprise, in order to preserve the acquired case law. It is not a question of weakening them, but of consolidating them.
3/ Assess the absence of consent in light of the surrounding circumstances
By this reference, the aim is to avoid the investigation being focused solely on the complainant or the notion of consent being turned against her (vulnerable victims, strategies of certain aggressors). This leads investigators and judges to question the actions of the person in question more closely and to assess the validity of consent in light of the victim’s potential vulnerabilities.
4/ Specify the cases where consent cannot be inferred
It is proposed to specify that consent cannot be inferred in situations where the victim is unable to express their refusal. Situations in which the victim’s vulnerability is exploited must also be better taken into account.
The parliamentary report is, to date, the most comprehensive that I know of and highlights the deep-rooted nature of rape culture, which authorizes the commission of this crime and hinders victims from filing complaints.
Rape culture allows the avoidance of any responsibility. Indeed, the perpetrator’s intentionality, i.e. the awareness and willingness to commit a crime, is essential in order to be able to criminally qualify the facts under French law. In the case of sexual offences, the intention to commit the offence necessarily implies the knowledge by its perpetrator of the absence of consent of the person, coupled with the will to proceed nevertheless. The lack of intentionality was raised by many co-accused in the Pelicot trial in order to avoid the qualification of rape.
There is rape and rape and, without the intention to commit it, there is no rape”
Guillaume de Palma, defense attorney in the Pelicot trial
If I had to rape someone, it would not have been a 57-year-old lady, but a beautiful one”
Ahmed T. during the Pelicot trial
If I had known that I was going to commit rape, I would have told him “no Sir, you’re not taking pictures of me”
Patrice N. during the Pelicot trial
An analysis of the case law does not allow to identify the intangible elements applicable to each case, necessary for the characterization of the element of intention. The characterization of this element is done on a case-by-case basis according to the contextual elements and therefore depends on the interpretation of the judge.
We could be concerned about this latitude of interpretation left to the judge who should decide a dispute that boils down to a case of “he said, she said”. This is not the case: the judge seeks to examine a whole range of evidence that may include psychological assessments of both parties, physical examinations of the victim, investigations into the digital trace of the accused or testimonies from the entourage of each party. Many judges agree that “he said, she said” only exists if one is satisfied with it and that a thorough investigation of the facts, circumstances and personalities makes it possible to draw a realistic picture of the situation each time.
The parliamentary report and the bill presented to the National Assembly on 21 January 2025 seek to redefine rape as “any non-consensual act of sexual penetration, of whatever nature, or any oral-genital act or any oral-anal act committed on the person of another or on the person of the perpetrator by violence, constraint, threat or surprise“. “Non-consensual” is added to the current definition, which would allow the judge to assess the manner in which the accused ensured the existence or absence of consent during the act.
The inclusion of the notion of non-consent in the definition of rape would be a significant first step forward.
I regret, however, that the evocation of the states of vulnerability mentioned in the parliamentary report of 21 January 2025 is not examined in-depth.
As I have already said here, the organization and wording of Articles 222-23 (definition of rape) and 222-24 (aggravating circumstances of rape) of the French Penal Code weaken, in my opinion, the process of qualifying rape. The first article states that there is rape if there was violence, threat, constraint or surprise and the second article lists fourteen aggravating circumstances, whereas it is precisely in their very essence that the absence of consent and therefore the existence of rape can reside: chemical submission, vulnerability due to age, illness, infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, dependence resulting from economic insecurity, ancestry or authority, gang rape, use of a weapon, marital rape. If we must refer to the Pelicot trial, it is precisely because there was chemical submission that there was rape.
Simply adding the notion of non-consent to the definition of rape will unfortunately in no way resolve this editorial fragility and that is a shame. Nevertheless, let us remain positive: the debate is moving forward.
Let’s clear our heads with photos of the Paris Commercial Court.
February 14, 2025
