An unidentified female Vietnamese tourist, 24, told a Dubai Criminal Court of the First Instance earlier today (March 8) that she was in a Dubai mall on October 20, 2011 with some friends when she met Defendant A, a Pakistani student.
The woman testified that she and Defendant A exchanged their phone numbers. Shortly thereafter, Defendant A called her to invite her to a party at his apartment. They agreed to meet around 0300 hours on October 20 in the car park of the Moscow Hotel in Dubai so he take her to his apartment.
COMMENT: Meeting in a hotel car park, particularly at 0300 in the morning, should have been a clue that something was amiss, rather than taking the woman to his apartment.
After Defendant A picked the woman up in his Toyota Corolla, he allegedly drove her to a deserted spot where two other men, both unemployed Emiratis defendants, were waiting. To the woman's surprise, she had been duped, at which point Defendants B and C restrained the woman while Defendant A raped her.
Subsequently, when Defendant A finished, he restrained her and the other two raped the victim for almost an hour.
The three assailants then told the woman that they wanted Dh 5,000 (US$1,361) from her is she wanted them to stop raping her and return her purse and passport.
Thinking fast on her feet, though, the victim told the men that she did not have that much money on her and suggested that they take her home so she could get more.
When they arrived at her residence, the victim was able to escape from the men, although she left behind her purse, containing Dh1,700 (US$463) and her iPhone.
Fortunate for her, the woman also had the presence of mind to memorize Defendant A's the car registration number. As a result, the three assailants were later apprehended and charged with rape and robbery.
Nevertheless, when the trial began, the three defendants pleaded not guilty, offering a much different version of the facts than those cited above by stating that the victim agreed to have sex with two of the defendants for money.
The events that led to this traumatic event for the victim might well have avoided had the victim exercised a bit more suspicion and told Defendant A that it was too late for her, suggesting that they should meet during the day with some of her friends. This would have enabled her to meet Defendant A in a far more public place and secure environment.
The next proceeding is scheduled for April 5. One can only hope that the three defendants will be found guilty, although they wisely used condoms during the attack and subsequently destroyed whatever trace DNA that might have been present at the time of the crime.
