Switzerland confirms Tariq Ramadan's rape conviction

In August 2025, Switzerland's highest court upheld the conviction of Tariq Ramadan, a noted Islamic scholar, for rape and sexual coercion. The conviction stemmed from incidents that occurred 17 years prior, particularly in October 2008, when Ramadan was accused of forcing a woman into non-consensual sexual acts in a Geneva hotel room. The decision followed an appeal that Ramadan filed, claiming procedural flaws and bias during the earlier trial. The federal court dismissed these claims, affirming the Geneva court's findings, and noted the verdict's facts in relation to their evidence assessments. Ramadan's conviction, which includes a three-year prison sentence with two years suspended, marked a significant moment in a broader context of accusations against him. In particular, Ramadan faces multiple allegations of sexual assault across Europe, notably in France, dating back over a decade. His defense maintains his innocence, alleging that the charges are part of a conspiratorial effort against him. Critics, however, emphasize the seriousness of the rulings against him considering the upheld conviction. Following the August 2025 decision, Tairq Ramadan's defense attorney expressed disappointment and announced plans to take the case further to the European Court of Human Rights. This ongoing legal battle reflects not only the legal implications for Ramadan but also the societal discourse surrounding sexual assault and support for victims. The court's rulings have significant consequences for Ramadan, whose status as a respected scholar has diminished in light of the allegations, and this outcome further complicates his public image. Overall, the ruling represents a culmination of a long legal struggle for the complainant, a Muslim convert named ‘Brigitte.’ Her lawyers celebrated the court's decision as a victory that concludes a protracted ordeal. The proceedings highlighted issues surrounding justice for sexual assault victims in society and emphasized the complexities involved in such high-profile cases, where public opinion and legal standards frequently intersect.