He highlights the absence of a protocol on how to act in cases of abuse and believes that the file was “redundant” but not criminal.

The head of the Investigative Court number 15 of Valencia has agreed to the provisional dismissal of the case opened against the former vice president of the Consell, former Minister of Equality and former spokesperson for the Botànic, Mónica Oltra, and her former senior officials investigated as she did not see any crime in her action nor an alleged cover-up of the sexual abuse committed by her ex-husband, a social educator, to a minor under guardianship.

According to an order from this same Tuesday, consulted by Europa Press, the magistrate considers that there are “no indications of the commission of any crime and this even though in the initial complaint and complaint, legal-criminal qualifications were made in a merely provisional manner that are unsustainable.” according to what was done.”

Along these lines, and after an exhaustive investigation, which has included the examination of thousands of emails, the magistrate maintains that “it has been reiterated ad nauseam that there is not a single indication that any order or instruction emanating from the charges was issued. directors of the Ministry aimed at hiding the facts or discrediting the minor”.

In fact, she states that Oltra learned of the facts on August 4, 2017, when her ex-husband, with whom she had little personal relationship at the time, was notified of the existence of the procedure and the precautionary measures imposed by the court that investigated the abuse.

In this case, Oltra herself, who resigned on June 21, 2022 from her responsibilities at the Consell and Les Corts, and 15 other senior officials and technicians of the department she directed at that time, including her Chief of Staff, were listed as being investigated; the Undersecretary of the Vice Presidency; general director of Children, psychologists or the director of the shelter where the abuses were committed between 2016 and 2017 for which the ex-partner of the former vice president is already serving five years in prison, in a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court.

In the case, the minor victim of the abuse – now of legal age – has been the private prosecutor and both the GobiérnaTe association chaired by the former leader of Vox, Cristina Seguí, and Vox have acted as popular accusations.

In the order of dismissal, against which there is an appeal for reform or appeal, the judge rejects, as not essential, carrying out further proceedings requested by these parties regarding the way in which the young woman was led handcuffed to testify at the Hearing for the judgment; the reasons why the Generalitat did not appear at the hearing or the call traffic between Oltra and his team.

The magistrate indicates in the resolution that he has questioned “multiple aspects” of the actions of those investigated but emphasizes that “each and every one of the indications that supported the provisional judicial accusations at the time (…) have completely vanished once “after all necessary steps have been taken to determine the nature and circumstances of the facts.”

“That is to say: the investigation is completed, all those investigated have been heard, taking into consideration the statements of all the witnesses” – and “very particularly” that of the victim herself, he emphasizes -, “the copious documentation has been examined (… ) and examined the traffic of 48 emails between those investigated and others, there remains no rational indication of criminality against the accused nor, consequently, any basis to issue a resolution of definitive judicial accusation (…), since mere suspicions , conjectures or speculations, not supported by rational evidence, do not authorize this,” he concludes.

The judge chronologically details the facts proven during the investigation, from when the victim suffered sexual abuse until 2019, when the Prosecutor’s Office received a report from the Ministry prepared by the Espill Institute regarding the minor.

The magistrate emphasizes that certain behaviors followed by some of those investigated “could certainly have been different from what they were” but without “criminal legal consequences being derived for them.”


Along these lines, it emphasizes that it has not been proven, “not even at the level of the evidence,” that Oltra or any other person from the Department “directed any order, instruction, instructions or indication to those investigated about which be their way of proceeding” with the victim or with the social educator and emphasizes that at that time there was also no type of protocol in the department on how to act in cases of sexual abuse of a warded minor.

In fact, it indicates that “none existed until some time later”, when an Instruction was issued on September 20, 2017 by the General Directorate of Children and Adolescence, within the scope of the Territorial Directorate.

“And, given the absence not only of a complaint, but of any demonstration” by the victim in the juvenile center where she was under guardianship and in the Department regarding the sexual abuse that she did report to some workers from the Anti-AIDS Committee, to the diligence of a psychologist, given the young woman’s desire to go with her boyfriend and leave the facility, the Juvenile Equality Section decided that there was no indication that she was a victim of crime, nor reasons to refer her to the Espill Institute and It was communicated to the Juvenile Prosecutor’s Office for its record in his file, the magistrate says.

Likewise, it considers that there could not have been administrative prevarication given that each and every one of the people investigated “denies having received any order, directive, instructions or indication” from Oltra from any other hierarchical superior “aimed at hiding facts that may constitute, at that time , of a crime of sexual abuse” and “avoiding persecution, or neglecting the minor.”

For this reason, it maintains that the thesis that the officials “concerted to breach the legal duties of assistance to the minor” remains “without support”, something that did not happen, or so that it was not brought to the attention of the police, prosecutor or authority. judicial investigation of the commission of sexual abuse, which the victim herself refused to expose within the center or the Department.

The magistrate sees it as “reprehensible” that the Prosecutor’s Office was not informed of what happened so that it could be recorded in the file of the young woman under guardianship, but points out that this omission does not imply the commission of any criminal offense. He also adds that, although certain requests from the Prosecutor’s Office were not “immediately attended to”, there is no evidence that this was done following instructions.


And in relation to the decision to open a file to gather information, he states that “one can disagree about whether he had to make sure whether what was told was true or not” by the victim but “there is no doubt” that Oltra “as councilor “was perfectly entitled to try to see what had gone wrong” or to see how the minor was being cared for.

For the magistrate, it seems “reasonable that the General Directorate would like to have knowledge of the facts reported, the actions carried out or the measures adopted”, although he understands that “it represents a criminally irrelevant excess to verify, where appropriate, the veracity of the facts”.

Along these lines, he adds that there was already a criminal procedure for that purpose but insists that the opening of this file, which he considers, like the Provincial Court, can “emulate a kind of parajudicial investigation”-, ” was misguided and even redundant” and that in its development there were “actions that could certainly be improved” but “all of this in no way makes the conduct of those who ordered it or intervened in its instruction criminal.”