Compensation for Judicial Error: 2.5 Million After 18 Years in Prison

A person convicted of two rapes served roughly eighteen years in prison before being acquitted. The reason for the acquittal was not a new doubt: at trial there already existed a biological expert report (a genetic profile obtained from semen found on the victim's clothing) that had been admitted, was never challenged and whose result was incompatible with his authorship. The conviction, however, rested decisively on the victim's identifying testimony, without assessing that report.

After the acquittal ordered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court through an appeal for review, the Fifth Section of the Administrative-Litigation Chamber, in a ruling of 18 June 2026, awarded compensation of 2,500,000 euros. The case is an opportunity to explain, with precision, the regime of State liability for the functioning of the administration of justice in Spain: when a judicial error exists, how it is declared and how it is claimed.

What the Supreme Court ruled on 18 June 2026

The Fifth Section of the Administrative-Litigation Chamber of the Supreme Court found a qualified and unequivocal judicial error. This was not a mere disagreement over the assessment of evidence, but the omission of decisive evidence already incorporated into the proceedings: an admitted, unchallenged biological expert report whose result contradicted the authorship attributed to the convicted person.

The Chamber awarded 2,500,000 euros of the 3,645,000 claimed. The amount responded fundamentally to the deprivation of liberty suffered over nearly eighteen years, factoring in the moral harm and the personal, family and professional damage associated with imprisonment of that length.

The court recalled that allowing an appeal for review does not automatically generate a right to compensation: not every later acquittal amounts to a compensable judicial error. What is decisive is that the error be patent and emerge, without any need for a fresh trial on the facts, from the very content of the ruling that reviewed the conviction.

The framework: Article 121 CE and Articles 292-293 LOPJ

Article 121 of the Spanish Constitution recognises the right to State-funded compensation for harm caused by judicial error and by the abnormal functioning of the administration of justice. It is a constitutional mandate developed by Articles 292 to 297 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary.

Article 292 LOPJ establishes that harm caused by judicial error or by abnormal functioning gives rise to compensation, except in cases of force majeure, and that the harm must be actual, economically assessable and individualised. The mere reversal or annulment of a ruling does not, by itself, presuppose a right to compensation.

Two situations should be distinguished. Judicial error in the strict sense is the patent mistake in a ruling handed down by judges in their adjudicatory function. Abnormal functioning refers to deficiencies in the public service of justice (unjustified delays, loss of case files, administrative errors) that do not necessarily crystallise in a wrong ruling.

How to claim: prior declaration, one-year period and the Ministry of Justice

The judicial-error procedure has an essential particularity: as a rule, the financial claim requires a prior declaration of the error. Under Article 293 LOPJ, that declaration falls to the Supreme Court and must be sought through a specific action, to be brought within three months of the date it could have been raised.

That prior declaration may also derive directly from a ruling handed down on an appeal for review. Precisely in the case decided on 18 June 2026 the court nuanced its doctrine: where the error emerges unequivocally from the very content of the review ruling, that decision serves as a sufficient basis without the need for an additional formal step.

Once the error is recognised, the interested party directs the compensation claim straight to the Ministry of Justice, which processes it under the rules of State patrimonial liability. The right to claim lapses one year from the date it could have been exercised, that is, from the moment the ruling declaring the error becomes final.

A separate figure: unjustified pre-trial detention (art. 294 LOPJ)

Alongside judicial error there is a different avenue: compensation for pre-trial detention followed by acquittal or unconditional dismissal, governed by Article 294 LOPJ. It is not a judicial error in the strict sense, but an autonomous head of State liability for a precautionary measure that is ultimately not confirmed by a conviction.

Its regime changed significantly following Constitutional Court ruling STC 85/2019 of 19 June, which declared unconstitutional the wording that limited compensation to cases of non-existence of the alleged fact, for breaching equality and the presumption of innocence. Today the provision recognises the right to compensation for anyone who suffers pre-trial detention and is acquitted or unconditionally dismissed, provided harm is proven.

The distinction is practical: the Article 294 route does not require proving an error in adjudication, only the precautionary measure itself and the later acquittal, whereas the judicial-error route requires demonstrating the qualified mistake in the ruling. In cases like the one discussed, compensation is channelled through judicial error because there was a final conviction, not merely pre-trial detention.

The role of expert evidence and the assessment of testimony

The core of the error was evidentiary. A biological expert report duly carried out and incorporated into the case file yielded a result incompatible with authorship, and the sentencing court did not assess it, resting the conviction decisively on the victim's identification. The omission of decisive evidence already on file is one of the clearest instances of qualified error.

The case illustrates the risks of identification evidence. Identification by the victim, however sincere, can be mistaken, which is why case law demands heightened caution when it conflicts with objective scientific evidence. Where an expert report excludes authorship, its silence in the ruling undermines the duty to give reasons and the rationality of the assessment.

For the defence, the lesson is twofold: to propose and exhaust scientific expert evidence from the investigation stage and, once a conviction becomes final, to assess the viability of an appeal for review when elements emerge or are confirmed that evidence innocence. Success in the review is, moreover, the key that opens the door to compensation.