French massage therapist denies sexual‑assault charges as Andorra trial adjourned

A French massage therapist on trial in Andorra has denied all charges as the case was adjourned until 9 December after the public prosecutor fell ill. The hearing, which began earlier this week at the Batllia court, was suspended at the start of the session when the court informed the parties of the prosecutor’s medical indisposition; all sides agreed to the postponement.

The defendant, who has been in preventive detention since his arrest in March 2024, faces three charges of sexual assault, two of them treated as alleged rapes. The first complaint dated from October 2022, when the complainant says she was a minor; two further complaints were filed in 2024 and prompted his arrest. Prosecutors are seeking prison terms and civil damages.

Court proceedings have already been disrupted once by a structural incident: during a previous sitting a false ceiling panel in the courtroom dropped by about 10 centimetres, causing alarm and an evacuation while technicians inspected the installation. The trial continued in an adjoining room after the interruption.

In his testimony the accused has rejected the allegations and maintains his work practices make intimate contact unlikely. He told the court he normally treats patients’ backs and the outer parts of the legs rather than inner thighs or genital areas, that some clients were treated in their underwear, and that he typically did not use sheets or blankets but informed patients of this in advance. The defence argues that any contact was consensual and that the evidence is insufficient to convict.

The defence called dozens of former patients to the stand, many of whom described positive therapeutic outcomes, recommended the therapist to relatives, and praised his bedside manner. Several witnesses also noted he offered alternative therapies and participated in local community activities, including a choir.

Prosecutors introduced WhatsApp exchanges they say were between the therapist and one complainant, alleging deleted messages and personal questions sent by the accused. The defendant denied remembering deleting messages, attributed gaps to forgetfulness and to sharing a work phone with his partner, and disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the conversations.

Forensic and medical experts testified about the practical limits of proving sexual contact after the fact. A gynaecological examination of one complainant showed no lesions; the expert said it is clinically very difficult to determine whether digital contact occurred and that the absence of lesions is compatible both with no aggression and with non‑visible intrusion. Scientific police reported only tiny traces of talc, insufficient to establish a match with seized containers and limited by the product’s volatility.

Psychological assessments filed in the case identified symptoms in two complainants consistent with the emotional impact of trauma, including post‑traumatic stress symptoms, nightmares and avoidance behaviours. While the reports emphasised coherence in the victims’ accounts, they do not constitute direct physical proof. The defence presented a psychiatrist’s report concluding the accused has no mental pathology and functions normally, noting mild narcissistic traits.

Coverage of the hearings has also highlighted a potential discrepancy the prosecution may seek to exploit: the accused has denied attending a particular patient’s third visit — the session during which one complainant alleges the rape occurred — while his partner, who also worked with him, reportedly said he had been present. Both defence and prosecution will seek to weigh the significance of that inconsistency.

With expert testimony concluded, parties expect the final expert reports and closing arguments to be decisive. The court will resume the trial on 9 December to hear final submissions; no verdict has yet been delivered.