Federal Supreme Court, 25.02.2026, 6B_303/2025
Facts
A man (the appellant) was convicted of sexual coercion, rape, and making threats against his wife (the respondent). The events took place within a marital context characterized by domination, humiliation, and repeated verbal threats. The appellant forced his wife to engage in sexual acts during two periods of extreme physical and psychological vulnerability. First, in 2020, following a complicated childbirth that required stitches and contraindicated any sexual activity for six weeks, he forced his wife to endure approximately ten instances of anal penetration. Fearing vaginal pain and wishing to "have peace," she submitted despite her verbal refusal and expressed pain. Second, in 2022, during the end of the respondent's third pregnancy, which was marked by medical complications (pain, contractions, medical leave), the appellant forced her to engage in near-daily vaginal intercourse for two months. He prevented her from sleeping and ignored her crying and expressions of pain. Furthermore, the appellant made serious threats against his wife ("you will end up buried in the garden," "I will break your legs," etc.), establishing a climate of fear that ultimately led the respondent to flee the marital home with their three children. Sentenced to 5 years and 3 months in the first instance, his sentence was reduced on appeal to 36 months, with six months to be served. He is appealing to the Federal Supreme Court to contest his conviction.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for applying the former articles 189 (sexual coercion) and 190 (rape) of the Criminal Code, which are applicable in this case in the absence of a lex mitior. These offenses protect sexual self-determination and presuppose a lack of consent from the victim, the intent of the perpetrator (dolus eventualis is sufficient), and the use of a means of coercion. Coercion can result from "psychological pressure," which does not require physical violence. Such pressure must reach a specific intensity, creating in the victim a feeling of helplessness or a hopeless situation that breaks their resistance. Case law refers to "structural violence" when this coercion results from the instrumentalization of social ties, such as a marital relationship, to create emotional dependency and submission. The assessment of the existence of such coercion must be made globally, taking into account all the circumstances of the relationship. On a subjective level, the perpetrator must know or, at the very least, accept the possibility that the victim is not consenting (dolus eventualis). This awareness is inferred from clear external signs, such as crying, verbal refusals, expressions of pain, or attitudes of physical withdrawal. Regarding threats (former art. 180 SCC), the offense is committed when the perpetrator makes a serious threat, objectively capable of alarming or frightening a reasonable person, and the victim is indeed frightened.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the appellant's argument, which attempted to minimize the facts by presenting them as a simple marital conflict and isolating each element from its context. The Court emphasizes that the cantonal authority correctly conducted a global assessment of the relationship dynamics. The Court considers that the climate of domination, denigration, and threats constituted psychological pressure of sufficient intensity to characterize coercion. The fact that the victim "let it happen to have peace" is not a sign of consent, but rather the manifestation of capitulation in the face of coercive pressure perceived as inevitable. Yielding to avoid the husband's anger or reprisals against the children is the very expression of coercion. The Court finds that the appellant knowingly exploited his wife's extreme vulnerability (postpartum and high-risk late pregnancy) to satisfy his sexual desires. The fact that the victim was not socially isolated (work, family) does not exclude the existence of psychological control within the intimate sphere, characterized by the victim's shame and loss of bearings, as she no longer realized the criminal nature of the acts she was enduring. Regarding intent, the Court judges that the appellant could not have been unaware of his wife's lack of consent. The signals were obvious and decipherable: verbal refusals, crying, expressions of pain, and medical contraindications known to him. By persisting despite these signs, he acted, at the very least, with dolus eventualis. The victim's hesitation to label the acts as "rape" herself is a known psychological reaction among victims under control and in no way diminishes the perpetrator's awareness. Finally, the threats were deemed serious and credible within the established context of fear, with the wife's flight with her children being the most tangible proof.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the appeal. It confirms the appellant's conviction for sexual coercion, rape, and threats. The appellant's request for legal aid is denied, and the court costs are charged to him.
Silex Newsletter published in collaboration with Claudia Malaguerra
