In Valencia, a notable shift unfolded as two former high-ranking officials connected to Mónica Oltra, the ex-vice president of the Generalitat Valenciana, face ongoing scrutiny in a long-standing case centered on the protection and welfare of a minor. The individuals in question include a former chief of staff who served Oltra directly and a former undersecretary for equality. Both figures requested that the court archivize their involvement after confirming that the matter was already under judicial review and that there was an absence of compelling evidence tying them to any wrongdoing. The developments followed the release of declassified fragments from Civil Guard analyses of emails produced by Oltra’s team, which appeared to show no instruction to conceal or distort the case file. Fourteen months had passed since a judge had summoned them to respond, and the request for archival judgment arrived amid these renewed disclosures, signaling a shift in how the court might weigh the personal accountability of individuals connected to the administration at that time. [Fuente: judicial records, Valencia, public proceedings]
Before the court could issue a ruling on the archival request, the president of the 15th Instruction Court in Valencia forwarded both the defense and the prosecution documents to the decision phase. One early reaction did not come from the minor’s current representative but rather from a legal administrator aligned with the legacy authorities of the era. This counsel is associated with a longstanding political movement and has been referenced in prior proceedings as a key figure within the network surrounding the case. In a document circulated to the parties on the day of notification, the young woman’s counsel stated there was no objection to archiving the action against the former chief of staff tied to Oltra’s orbit. [Fuente: court communications, Valencia]
Conversely, the stance was different when the request targeted the former Undersecretary for Equality. The minor’s advocate clearly opposed archiving the case against this official, emphasizing the perceived failure to fulfill duty and to safeguard the interests of the vulnerable minor. The submissions describe the former official as someone who possessed a role in supervising inspection services within the ministry and who was expected to act with due care. The language highlights a belief that authority should have led to a more vigilant response when signs of harassment emerged. The defense notes that there was a perception of inconsistency in how responsibilities were exercised and questions whether oversight duties had been properly executed. The broader point is a call for accountability irrespective of personal status within the administration. [Fuente: defense filings, Valencia]
As the case unfolds, the defense of the minor argues that the person under investigation, once aware of the harassment, did not undertake a timely inquiry into why the minor might have breached security or normal access channels. The narrative portrays a lapse in the deployment of the official powers meant to protect a vulnerable party, and it asserts that the delay in addressing the incident contributed to the continued risk and harm. While the archival request makes the central assertion that there is insufficient evidence to continue, the defense maintains that the handling of the matter raises questions about due process and protective obligations. The discussion thus centers on balancing the needs for swift resolution with the imperative to ensure that all relevant information has been thoroughly considered by the court. [Fuente: defense arguments, Valencia court]
The ultimate decision will rest on how the court weighs these contrasts: whether the absence of direct orders to hide or alter the file justifies archiving the case, or whether the actions and omissions cited by the minor’s counsel warrant a deeper examination of responsibility for safeguarding a child in custody and the integrity of investigative processes. The proceedings continue to illustrate the tension between administrative proximity to a case and the insistence on rigorous scrutiny when harm to a vulnerable person is alleged. The court’s ruling will shape not only the immediate fate of the archival requests but also the broader expectations for accountability among officials who hold roles connected to child protection and equal rights. [Fuente: Valencia court docket, ongoing proceedings]