A resident of Santiago has told the court that he was forced to leave his home and change his daily habits for years due to alleged homophobic harassment that he attributes to a couple in the same building. The defendants reject this version and argue that the origin of the conflict always lay in problems between their respective dogs.
The sixth section of the Provincial Court of A Coruña, based in Santiago, held this Friday the trial against the couple, who are accused of harassing, humiliating, and insulting their neighbor with homophobic overtones between 2015 and 2020.
The complainant has stated that the disagreements began when he asked his neighbors to keep his dog on a leash, because he did not get along with his and episodes of aggression occurred between the animals. From that moment, according to his account, insults, mockery, and intimidating behavior began, with expressions about his sexual orientation such as “faggot” or “fucking faggot.”
He explained that the situation dragged on for so long that he came to feel afraid to leave the house alone. For that reason, he changed his schedules and routes to avoid crossing paths with the couple, and finally opted to move in with his partner, accepting a greater expense, in order to stop living in the same area.
One of the key events in the case took place on December 1, 2019, when, as he has indicated, the dogs fought and he suffered several bites on his hands when he tried to separate them.
The man has said that he ended up covered in blood and required medical attention, with injuries that later caused functional limitations. He also indicated that one of the accused, the husband, who at that time was taking the dog, did not help him or show any interest in his condition in the days that followed.
His former partner, who testified as a witness, has supported the impact that this situation had on the complainant’s daily life and has assured that, in that incident, he found him on the ground, surrounded by a puddle of blood that was still there,” he has stated. He added that the dynamic of harassment ended up conditioning both of their lives to the point that they could not continue living in that environment.
Witnesses and experts confirm the attack and the aftereffects
Subsequently, they declared two witnesses: a neighbor from the neighborhood and a friend who was in her house during the incident with the dogs. Both have said that they heard numerous barks and leaned out of the window, where they saw the complainant injured trying to separate two canines, while one of the accused moved away from the scene.
As they related, they went down to the street with a tub with water to clean the injuries and help him. They found him alone, half reclined on the ground and disoriented, in a pool of blood that, they have specified, was still visible the next day. After notifying their partner, they left the area.
The medical experts have confirmed the existence of injuries, detailing that, although they are described as superficial, they presented complications and required antibiotic treatment and bandaging for a period of time. They have indicated that the after-effects include pain when carrying out certain movements.
With regard to the psychological sphere, the specialists have indicated that the complainant continues treatment with antidepressants and anxiolytics and that in 2024 he still presented symptoms linked to the incident, such as fear, avoidance behaviors, and anxiety. They have also highlighted that the episode led to changes in his lifestyle and a break in social and sentimental ties.
The accused reject homophobic motivation
During the hearing, several videos recorded by the complainant were shown in which some of the verbal confrontations are captured. One was recorded near the catering establishment where he worked and another in the vicinity of his home.
The accused has admitted to having uttered certain insults in one of those recordings, although she has insisted that they occurred in the context of an argument in which the complainant said "Coidado cos maricones". She has denied that there was any homophobic intent and has assured that he "fell for the neighbor's provocations".
Along the same lines, she has stated that she did not know whether the complainant had a partner and whether that partner was a man or a woman.
"I have nothing against this being or against the lgtbi or anything," she has reiterated, stressing that the way in which the complainant addressed her and recorded her with his mobile phone was "arrogant and aggressive".
For his part, her husband has insisted that the conflict was limited to the bad relationship between the dogs and has denied that the complainant’s injuries had the severity described, describing them as simple scratches. He has also explained that, when the incident between the animals occurred, he left quickly to prevent them from getting attached to each other again.
Confronting positions of the Prosecution Service and the defense
The Prosecution Service and the private prosecution have maintained that the insults and threats were not isolated events, but part of a continuing course of conduct intended to belittle the complainant because of his sexual orientation. They have argued that the main evidence is the victim’s testimony, later corroborated by his ex-partner.
In their arguments, they have pointed out that a hate crime has been proven, since insults directed at his sexual orientation were made repeatedly. "The purpose was to denigrate him in public spaces," the prosecutor said, adding that the person affected developed "fear and tension" that significantly altered his day-to-day life.
For this reason, they have requested a conviction for a hate crime and discrimination in concurrence of norms with a crime of harassment, as well as a minor offense of threats, together with compensation of 6,000 euros for moral damages.
By contrast, the defense of the couple has argued that this is a neighborhood dispute stemming from clashes between the animals and that the insults and lack of respect occurred in the context of mutual arguments. It has argued that no hate crime is established "in any way at all," but rather a "fictitious account" built from an isolated video.
"The trigger for that discussion is unrelated to the complainant’s sexual orientation. The first thing this person reproaches him with is that the bitch is loose. The issue of sexual orientation was included by the complainant himself when he said 'Coidado cos maricones'", the defense has argued.
It has also questioned the credibility of the complainant due to alleged contradictions about the episode of the bites, recalling that in the PAC he stated that it was his own dog that attacked him and he did not mention the accused person’s animal. In addition, it has emphasized that his attitude in the videos is "provocative, aggressive, mocking and ironic" and that the symptomatology reflected in the psychosocial report could be explained by other life experiences.
After hearing all parties, the court has left the case pending a ruling for sentencing.