Appeals filed in Pelicot rape case in France, bringing new trial for 17 men
Paris: Dominique Pelicot, the 72-year-old who admitted to drugging his wife for years in France and inviting dozens of other men to join him in raping her, will not appeal his conviction on aggravated rape and other charges, his lawyer said on Monday.
But the horrific story, which galvanised women in France and beyond to speak out against spousal violence and rape culture, is far from over. Seventeen of the 50 other men found guilty in the case have appealed, according to a statement released on Monday by the prosecutor at the regional court where the appeals will be heard.
A new trial for those men, which could subject Pelicot’s now former wife, Gisèle Pelicot, to a fresh round of indignity and pain, is expected to take place in the last months of 2025 at a courthouse in Nîmes, in southern France. The case will be heard by three judges and a nine-person jury. The judges and jury members all vote and a decision is reached by simple majority.
In a phone interview on Monday, one of Gisèle Pelicot’s lawyers, Stéphane Babonneau, said that Gisèle Pelicot was aware that the guilty verdicts and sentencings had been “only a first step”. He said she respects the right of the men to appeal.
“Clearly she would have preferred it not to happen,” Babonneau said. “But if she has to take part in a second trial, she will. She’s serene about it.”
Loading
During the recent trial, Dominique Pelicot had said that he expected the five-judge panel to give him the maximum 20-year sentence for his crimes. The judges did so on December 19, when all the verdicts and sentences were announced.
With the revelations of his crimes, Dominique Pelicot became one of France’s most notorious sexual predators.
On Monday, Béatrice Zavarro, his lawyer, said in an interview with French public radio that Dominique Pelicot believed that an appeal would constitute a “new ordeal” for Gisèle Pelicot, “whom he has always indicated in the proceedings was not his adversary”. She also said that she did not want her client to run the risk of new charges and a harsher sentence, which would be a possibility if he were to appeal.
