34-year-old man convicted of rape

"The judgment is interesting because it is up to the individual to make sure that the other participates of his own free will," said the counselor of the woman's owner, Baharak Vaziri.

How is the judgment interesting?

"In principle, anyone who has been convicted negligently," says Baharak Vaziri.

It was in September that the 34-year-old man, via the dating apple, Tinder had sued the woman in court in his apartment in central Stockholm.

Neither man nor The woman denies having been transferred to the apartment or having sex.

However, the information on what really happened was different.

The woman says that the man hugged her in the middle of a conversation and chased her out of "pure shock". Almost immediately after, the man began to touch the body of the woman. The woman then reacted with opposition that the man considered a "challenge".

You heard The woman said that she had tried to keep eye contact with the man to have control of the situation, "instead of panic".

"There was no escape route, but she was at home with a man twice as big as him in a city she did not know, and to get out of the apartment alive, she did not go out. did not want to upset this man, "says the protocol of the court of instance.

But when the man seized the woman, she panicked and then stopped resisting. It was also at the end of intercourse and that the woman left the apartment almost immediately afterwards.

The 34 year old man has always denied the crimes and said that it was about a voluntary sexual intercourse. He describes the resistance of the woman as a play and that it was a prelude. The man also says that the woman never said no and that they had a passionate moment.

The man tells in interrogation that the sexual intercourse ended when he noticed a change in the woman.

"After a while, she got up from the bed and mentioned something that was emotionally absent, he thought it was ironic that he had always tried to do good for her," says the minutes. district court.

In the judgment, as Attention was first focused on today's legal affairs. The District Court mentions the consent that came into effect this summer and writes that anyone who wants to interact with "a passive person or transmitting two-digit signals can determine if the other wants." This requirement applies throughout the intercourse.

The fact that the woman formed the opposition should have made the man aware that there could be a risk that the consent was not found. However, the district court finds that the man does not intend to be raped and mentions inter alia the fact that the woman has talked about using condoms and that she "s not going to be raped. she refused first at a late stage. But also that the man stopped when the woman stopped her resistance.

However, the district court finds that the man was "grossly negligent" for the risk that the woman did not volunteer and did not try her for a year of imprisonment for rape fraudulent.