The Barcelona Public Prosecutor’s Office asked the judge to reject the acceptance of the complaint filed by six female activists against a National Police officer identified as DHP. The complaints allege that the officer infiltrated social movements in Sant Andreu, Barcelona, and the local trade union arena between May 2020 and October 2022. It is claimed that the officer may have pursued sexual and romantic relationships with these activists in order to obtain information, while presenting himself under a false identity. The then Mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, wrote to the Minister of Internal Affairs, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, seeking explanations regarding the officer’s activities.
The six complainants allege a range of offenses, including ongoing sexual abuse, multiple instances of torture, the discovery and disclosure of secrets, and the obstruction of civil rights. Barcelona Instruction Court No. 21 is tasked with deciding whether the complaint should be admitted for further investigation. The prosecution contends that the events described do not demonstrate acts that could be classified as crimes, and therefore the complaint should not be accepted for processing.
In the court document, the prosecution reviews in detail each crime attributed to the officer by the activists and assesses how the facts align with legal definitions. On the sexual abuse accusations, the public ministry argues that the six women were adults at the time of any sexual activity and that there is no evidence of coercion or restriction of consent. It is stated that the encounters occurred with consent and without violence or intimidation, and that there was no special constraint affecting the women’s ability to consent. The document also notes that it remains unknown whether the activists informed the officer that they would not engage in relationships with police personnel.
Torture and moral integrity
The prosecution also rejects the torture allegations. It argues that even if the officer had sexual relations with the complainants for information, there was no unequal power relationship during those encounters. In other words, the officer could not abuse any duty if the complainants did not know they were dealing with a police agent, and voluntary sexual relations fall outside the scope of criminal action according to the document.
The prosecutor’s office also denies a crime against moral integrity. It contends that hiding a partner’s status as a police agent within ongoing sexual and emotional relations cannot be treated as degrading treatment. The statement underscores that feeling uncomfortable after an incident does not automatically render the experience humiliating, and that personal discomfort alone does not meet the legal threshold for this offense.
Additionally, the prosecution disputes the claim that a crime was committed by exposing secrets or by impeding civil rights. It asserts that nothing in the complaint demonstrates that any of the six plaintiffs were prevented from exercising their rights. The arguments emphasize that the plaintiffs continued to pursue their activities and rights without demonstrable interference, and that the alleged acts do not show how civil rights were obstructed in practice. The document concludes by evaluating the overall spectrum of alleged misconduct and the necessity of opening an investigation, should the court find grounds to do so based on the presented facts and applicable law.