No products in the cart.
A court ruling that reignites the debate on victims’ voices and Spain’s legal framework
An Ibiza criminal court has sentenced Mavi De Mars to 15 months and one day in prison for defamation with publicity, after ruling that the public rape accusation she made against Israeli DJ Guy Gerber was legally unfounded. The decision, issued on December 23, 2025, is based on Spanish defamation law, which is particularly strict in this type of case.
The events date back to 2013, during a private party in Mykonos. In 2022, Mavi De Mars published a statement on Instagram alleging that she had been drugged and raped by Guy Gerber. The post went viral, being shared hundreds of thousands of times, and became part of a wider wave of testimonies under the slogan Our Time Is Now. Guy Gerber denied the allegations and initiated legal proceedings in Spain, where Mavi De Mars resides.
What the court ruling actually says
The Ibiza court did not try Guy Gerber for rape. It ruled on a defamation complaint (calumnia), a criminal offence in Spain when someone publicly accuses another person of a serious crime.
In its judgment, the court found that the alleged sexual assault had not been demonstrated and that Mavi De Mars had not provided sufficient material evidence such as medical reports, toxicology results or contemporaneous witness testimony. She had not filed a police report at the time nor sought medical assistance.
Within this specific legal framework, and under the principle of exceptio veritatis, Spanish law requires a person who publicly maintains an accusation to prove its truthfulness. Failing that, the accusation is legally considered false, leading to a conviction for defamation. The judge therefore held that Mavi De Mars had attributed a crime “knowing it to be false or without being able to demonstrate its truth.”
This distinction is essential: the court did not independently establish that the events never took place, but that they were not proven according to the requirements of Spanish criminal law within a defamation procedure.
The case has also been extensively analysed by independent journalist Annabel Ross, notably in her publication The Politics of Dancing. In several in-depth articles, she situates the conviction of Mavi De Mars within the specific framework of Spanish defamation law, emphasising that the judicial decision concerns an accusation deemed legally unproven, rather than a definitive determination of what happened in Mykonos in 2013.
Annabel Ross highlights a key point often lost in headlines: under calumnia, the absence of proof legally becomes proof of falsity, which can lead to an accuser being labelled a liar even when the alleged facts have never been examined in a criminal rape trial. Her work also underlines how particularly deterrent this system is for victims of sexual violence, especially when the events are historic and no legal action was taken at the time.
A law that particularly exposes accusers
Spain is among the European countries where defamation is a criminal, not civil, offence. In practice, this means that those found guilty may face prison sentences, even though these are often suspended or adjusted in the absence of prior convictions, as in this case.
Beyond the sentence itself, Mavi De Mars was ordered to publish the court ruling on her social media accounts for six months and to pay legal costs. She has announced her intention to appeal.
The case has reignited a sensitive debate: the legal risks faced by people who speak publicly about sexual violence without having filed an immediate complaint, particularly when the alleged events are historic. Many organisations and legal experts stress that proving rape remains extremely difficult, especially years later, and that the absence of material evidence does not necessarily mean the assault did not occur.
Filing a complaint nevertheless remains crucial
While this ruling may increase fear around speaking publicly, it also highlights the importance of formally filing complaints, even when the chances of conviction appear low. Across Europe, only a minority of sexual assaults result in a police report, and an even smaller fraction lead to a conviction.
These figures reflect less a rarity of assaults than a system of proof that is particularly unfavourable to victims, marked by fear of not being believed, trauma, and the complexity of judicial procedures. Filing a complaint nonetheless creates an official record, opens the door to investigation, and in some cases helps reveal repeated patterns.
Annabel Ross’s reporting also reminds us that this case is not limited to a confrontation between two individual accounts. She documents the existence of several distinct testimonies, from women with no connection to one another, describing similar experiences involving Guy Gerber during the same period. To date, these accounts have not resulted in any criminal conviction, and Guy Gerber firmly denies the allegations. They nevertheless contribute to a broader debate on power, silence and protection mechanisms within the music industry, and on the limits of existing legal frameworks for addressing sexual violence.
A case that remains ongoing in the public sphere
The conviction of Mavi De Mars for defamation does not put an end to the debates raised by this case. Several other women have independently shared similar accounts involving Guy Gerber, without any criminal proceedings for sexual violence having resulted in a conviction to date. Guy Gerber denies all allegations.
This case illustrates a persistent tension: how to protect the presumption of innocence without making victims’ speech legally self-destructive, and how to encourage reporting without exposing those who speak out to severe criminal sanctions.
Mavi De Mars is currently preparing her appeal.