At the Luxembourg City Court, the trial of a gynaecologist accused of rape and sexual assault by several patients entered its third day, with proceedings focusing on whether the defendant abused his professional position to commit the alleged assaults.
Shortly after the session in the thirteenth Criminal Chamber began, a woman at the back of the courtroom stood and raised her hand, expressing a wish to testify against the accused. The presiding judge clarified that this was not procedurally permitted, informing her she would need to file a formal complaint to have her statement entered into the record.
The court then heard from one of the four plaintiffs who have accused the gynaecologist of rape and sexual assault. Echoing previous witness testimony, she described inappropriate touching in intimate areas, which she stated began during her pregnancy. The woman told the court she realised “something was not right” when she saw the doctor had an erection.
The presiding judge focused on two key points: the woman’s connection to another victim, and who assisted her in drafting her complaint to the medical board. The witness confirmed she was acquainted with another plaintiff, having met socially with their babies. After both women ceased being treated by the accused, they chose the same new gynaecologist – a doctor who is known to the defendant and who will later be called as a witness.
The two gynaecologists were former practice partners and did not part on good terms. The defence lawyers suggested this former partner authored the complaint for the plaintiff, a woman from Senegal who cannot read or write. They cited, in part, punctuation they believe indicates an author of Spanish origin. Under repeated questioning from the judge, the woman could not recall who helped her draft the document.
The presiding judge stated she did not believe the witness on this point, reminding her that perjury carries a prison sentence. The judge also noted the complaint contained medical terminology the alleged victim would not typically use.
The defence lawyers for the gynaecologist, Lydie Lorang and Frank Rollinger, announced their intent to file a complaint for perjury. To avoid interrupting the trial at this stage, however, it was decided to first hear the remaining witnesses. This schedule also preserved the possibility for the woman to correct her statement. The prosecution argued the issue was unrelated to the credibility of the four plaintiffs, but the presiding judge maintained the trial could not proceed on the basis of what she considered false testimony. If a complaint is filed, proceedings will be suspended until the perjury allegation is resolved.
The alleged offences span the period between 2013 and 2018. The court also heard from a midwife who has worked for the accused since 2021. She emphasised that she is always present in the room during patient consultations and goes on holiday at the same time as the gynaecologist.
The trial is scheduled to continue on Friday morning and into the following week.
Read also:
