the CGPJ files 900 complaints against him

Carretero asked the actress about her sexual assault complaint against former Sumar spokesperson Íñigo Errejón.

The judge, who had the complainant stand for the hour and 20 minutes of her appearance, asked her questions such as: “Could it not be that she wanted something with this man and, since he did not reciprocate, she is now reporting him?” », “Did you tell him to stop? “, “according to you, he tore off his penis, for what?It’s strange that she comes home with himwhen he says he was subjected to forced touching.

The complaints mailbox of the CGPJ Citizen Service Unit collapsed after receipt more than 900 complaints against Carter.

Some had the same wording. In these documents, the instructor was attributed with a “lack of empathy” and “sensitivity” towards the person who appeared in court as an alleged victim, and his “aggressiveness” And “raw” treatment and the instructor was considered to have “re-victimized” Mouliaá.

The complaints added that Carretero asked “unnecessarily sexualized questions” and made “value judgments about the victim’s attitude toward the alleged attacker, even making her late in reporting her act.” reproach him for his lack of resistance and for not refusing expressly” to Errejón’s assertions.

The Permanent Commission of the CGPJ agreed to file the complaint taking into account the arguments of the Promoter of Disciplinary Action, Ricardo Conde.

The file was decided in advance to the fact that on November 14, Carretero concluded the investigation into Mouliaá’s complaint and decided to continue the proceedings against Íñigo Errejón so that he could be tried for alleged sexual abuse.

“The very nature of the crime investigated implies, in itself, the formulation of questions that inevitably involve an intrusion into the most intimate aspects of the victim. This inevitably places the person in a situation of discomfort and tribulation, which must be rationally combined with the need to investigate what happened,” the records agreement states.

The resolution recalls that proven reality can determine the prison sentence of the accused and that the victim’s testimony can alone serve to destroy the presumption of innocence in this type of crime.

He also points out that, during his statement, Mouliaá She was assisted by her lawyer and a prosecutor was present.. “There is no proof that complaints or reproaches have been made, of any nature whatsoever, concerning the actions of the magistrate,” he underlines.

Mouliaá also did not present any complaints and your own lawyer He told the media that the harshness of the judge’s questioning “can be positive by making it possible to assess the strength of the complaint and guaranteeing the presumption of innocence of the accused.”

The filing agreement acknowledges that, “even when the judge used uncomfortable terms or expressions,” His questions were intended to “contrast the veracity of the version maintained by the declarant”.

In these crimes, he explains, “it is necessary to oppose elements such as the absence of cause for subjective incredibility or the plausibility of the testimony given”.

“And for this he used certain literal terms included in the complaintwhich explains the use of a certain vocabulary,” he says.

The trainer “must clarify the facts reported, objectively dispelling any inconsistency in the victim’s story and preserving the principle of presumption of innocence”, insists the promoter.

In this sense, it is considered relevant to consider the statement in its entirety, not divided, to appreciate that Mouliaá “declared freely, making the assessments that he deemed appropriate, without this being obvious”. no type of coercion, abuse or excess of authority by the magistrate.”

“It is true that the tone that (Carretero) uses and his very way of questioning could generate discomfort and discomfort” and that “the goal of diligence can achieve, perhaps, the same objective by addressing the the tone and form of questions differently“.

“But it is also true that the decontextualized vision of only part of the recording offers an inaccurate or distorted reality, which does not correspond to what is verified once viewed in its entirety, taking into account both the purpose of the act and – above all – the meaning of the testimony given”, he underlines.

For all these reasons, he considers that the instructor “did not misunderstand the declarant”, “did not at any time trivialize the procedural debate” nor utter terms “which demonstrate a lack of respect or an abuse of authority, or which are legally impertinent and personally derogatory”.

There is also no evidence of a “desire to offend by a specific disqualifying attitude”, he concludes.