I wrote previously about a rape case in Austria involving an Iraqi refugee. Amir A. claimed that he experienced a “sexual emergency” while at a swimming pool. In response, he snatched a random boy, took him to a stall, and raped the child. Amir then returned to the diving board as if nothing had happened. When police approached him, Amir admitted to the rape, claiming that he had not had sex in months and “[…]couldn’t stand not having sex as [he had] excess sexual energy.”
Amir was later convicted on sexual assault and faced six years in jail. However, in October the Austrian Supreme Court overturned the conviction, claiming:
[…] that while the verdict was “watertight” with regard to the serious sexual abuse of a juvenile, the written verdict on the second indictment, rape, cannot be sufficiently proved.
According to the Supreme Court, the first court should have ascertained whether the offender had thought that the victim agreed to the sexual act and whether Amir A. had the intention to act against the will of the boy.
As I noted in that post, one would think that would be clear by the boy seeking out help and informing the authorities that Amir assaulted him that the boy did not give his consent. One would also think that would be apparent from Amir’s admission to the crime and that the government awarded monetary compensation to the victim’s family.
Apparently that was not the case. Continue reading →