The Tudela district court in Navarre issued a decision this afternoon following the weekend arrests of five individuals accused of crimes impacting women s sexual autonomy. The case has become a focal point in ongoing investigations into alleged offenses and the handling of evidence by local authorities and the judiciary. The court s ruling arrives as the community awaits further details about the allegations and the scrutiny surrounding the procedures used to gather and assess testimony and material evidence in this sensitive matter.
During testimonies held on Monday to police and again at a public hearing on Tuesday, the complainant described the events under scrutiny, noting that she did not perceive three of the four men involved as having committed sexual assault against her. The investigation includes a report about an alleged incident at a nightclub, with a claim that a man touched her without consent and grabbed her left wrist near a private room. The judge presiding over the Tudela Court of First Instance acknowledged these allegations of improper touching and subsequently ordered those under investigation to refrain from contacting the complainant and to avoid any form of direct or indirect contact. The measure is designed to safeguard the complainant while the case continues to unfold and the facts are carefully weighed by the court, prosecutors, and defense counsel alike.
The proceedings also referenced statements from a fifth individual connected to the events, who is currently in detention. This person disputed claims of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct and denied any sexual contact with the complainant. The court, in its assessment, highlighted reports that the same individual allegedly grabbed the complainant by the neck and struck her at a shared residence. Based on the evidence presented and the statements collected, the judge determined that there are credible grounds to consider potential gender violence implications. As part of protective measures, a restraining order was issued prohibiting contact or proximity within a radius of 200 meters from the complainant, with the order remaining in effect as the case moves toward further review and clarification of the circumstances involved. The decision reflects a careful balance between safeguarding the victim s safety and ensuring due process as the judicial process proceeds.”