2. Is French Law “Without No, It's Yes”? 

French law defines rape as oral, vaginal or anal penetration committed by coercion, surprise, threat or violence. This legal framework does not include the notion of consent. To be punishable, rape must fall into one of these four categories. In the case of chemical submission, jurisprudence considers that this type of rape is committed by “surprise”.  

Faced with the lawyers' attacks, described as “humiliating”, Gisèle Pélicot declared: “I feel as though I am being treated as the guilty party.”. Indeed, from an international perspective, French justice seems brutal when dealing with survivors of sexual violence. In sexual violence trials, those accused of crimes are presumed innocent. Consequently, it is up to the survivors to prove the absence of consent, and not up to those accused of rape to prove the presence of consent. It is up to the survivors to prove that penetration took place under coercion, surprise, threat or violence. 

In concrete terms, if the accused person's lawyers succeed in demonstrating that the refusal of consent was not clear, that the penetration took place without duress, surprise, threat or characterized violence, this may result in an absence of conviction. Under French law, lack of consent to a sexual act alone does not constitute rape. 

In the case of the trial of the 51 men accused of raping Gisèle Pélicot, the defendants are therefore trying to demonstrate that it was not obvious to them that there had been a refusal of consent. This is why some of them claim to have thought that Gisèle Pélicot was pretending to be asleep, in which case there would have been no refusal of consent. This defense is symbolized by the statement made by one of the defendants' lawyers to the media: “There is rape and rape and, without the intention to commit it, there is no rape”.  

3. “There is rape and rape and, without intent to commit it, there is no rape”.  

This statement triggered a wave of reaction from feminist movements, backed by public opinion. The sentence is indicative of a fundamental debate taking place in France over the definition of rape and the lack of conviction of those accused of rape. The trial is fueling widespread criticism in France of the legislative framework governing rape.  

Feminist organizations are calling on the French government to broaden the legal definition of rape to include the notion of consent. Many survivors tell of how they were denied justice and the rapists were not convicted because the rape they denounced did not fall into one of the four categories of coercion, surprise, threat or violence. 

French feminists are looking internationally, highlighting the laws developed by neighboring countries to condemn rape. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, many governments have changed their laws to ensure that the legal definition reflects the societal definition as closely as possible. It's important to remember and state clearly: it's society and its evolution that shape the law. The opposite is a sign of a sick society.  

In 2018, Sweden amended its law to define that sexual intercourse must be voluntary. The government created a new offence to condemn “negligent rape”. The absence of no is no longer an element in the defense of those accused of rape. The absence of a “no” becomes an additional indication of conviction. In 2022, Spain passed a law dubbed “Only a yes and yes”, making explicit agreement a prerequisite for consensual sexual intercourse. 

Following the example of these countries, will France demonstrate its ability to keep pace with the evolution of society, and to hear and to listen to survivors of sexual violence?  

The trial's conclusion is set for December 20. As this case unfolds and captures the world’s attention, it serves as a powerful reminder to governments everywhere: it is time to examine your legal frameworks surrounding sexual violence with honesty and urgency. Are your laws comprehensive and reflective of the many forms that sexual violence can take? Are the voices of survivors listened to, and met with justice? It is not enough to have legislation on paper; the true measure of justice lies in how these laws are implemented and whether they protect and empower survivors. 

To all the policymakers and leaders watching this trial, now is the time to ensure that justice systems are not only reactive but proactive. Do women in your country feel safe and confident when coming forward? Do they believe that they will be supported and that their cases will be treated with the seriousness they deserve? The world is watching, and more importantly, so are your citizens. This moment demands action and accountability, so that justice for survivors like Gisele becomes the standard, not the exception.