The trial included testimony from witnesses and experts, as well as a request to Íñigo Errejón and Elisa Mouliaá to release the conversations they had in the days immediately preceding the reported events. After more than a year of investigations, the Madrid Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the file of the ongoing case against the former deputy and former speaker of the parliament of Sumar, since the evidence presented does not allow formulating a formal indictment. This was reported by the media covering the progress of the case.
According to the information published by the Madrid Public Prosecutor’s Office, the petition was addressed to Judge Adolfo Carretero, head of the Investigative Court No. 47 of Madrid, with a document contesting the appeal lodged by Errejón against the indictment. In this appeal, Errejón wanted to prevent the actress Elisa Mouliaá from being investigated for an alleged sexual assault. The Ministry of State considered that, although the order complies with the legal requirements and sets out the evidence collected, it is not consistent enough to proceed with the formulation of the indictment and therefore asked the judge to order the temporary stay of the proceedings and the archiving of the proceedings.
As the prosecutor’s office detailed, the judge had agreed to prosecute Errejón on November 14, after a 13-month trial that included testimony from both the former deputy and Mouliaá, as well as witnesses and psychiatric specialists. In addition, the parties were asked to provide the messages exchanged via social networks shortly before the reported event. The judge’s indictment stated that there was evidence that would have to be assessed in the trial, but he acknowledged that the account of the person under investigation, as well as the expert and documentary evidence, had not managed to completely refute the facts in question.
As published by the aforementioned media, the actress’ complaint states that the alleged incident occurred after the presentation of a book by Errejón, in a context in which both had maintained contact through social networks for almost a year. After the event, both went to a nearby bar and, according to the complainant, out of politeness she offered Errejón to accompany her to a meeting at a friend’s house, an invitation which the former parliamentarian accepted.
The Madrid Public Prosecutor’s Office confirmed to the media that despite the evidence collected in the car, it did not reach the level required to withstand criminal charges in court. In this way, the State Department based its request for archiving on the inadequacy of the elements collected after a comprehensive investigation that included various witness statements and technical analysis.
During the thirteen-month-long judicial investigation, the judge expanded the investigation and required not only the appearance of those directly involved and those around them, but also psychiatric reports and the review of private communications, the media reported. The aim of this entire file was to provide the context of the relationship between the former deputy and the actress before and after the meeting that gave rise to the complaint.
The judge’s decision, issued in November, indicated that the evidence on the facts presented had not been completely refuted, which is why he ruled out archiving the trial at this time, despite the defense’s statements. However, the position of the prosecutor’s office, contained in Instruction Letter No. 47 addressed to the court, deviates from the decision made and calls for the case to be terminated due to insufficient evidence for formal charges.
Sources from the State Ministry reported by the same media stressed that the legal analysis carried out concludes that the investigation, in accordance with the legislation and the standards required at this stage of the procedure, does not allow us to exceed the threshold of evidence necessary to maintain the accusation against Errejón. The final processing of this archive request is now in the hands of Judge Adolfo Carretero, who must decide whether to continue the proceedings or to close the proceedings through a judicial investigation.
About The Author
