A young man has been accumulating complaints since August of last year, with four formal complaints and three arrests tied to sexual assault or harassment. According to sources connected to the case, these actions violated a distance and communication ban with his former partner, with whom he began a relationship when she was 14 years old.
The arrest was executed by police units from Alicante’s Family and Women’s Unit (UFAM) after a center for supervised youth reported concerns last month.
He admitted a pattern of dependency on his ex-partner and acknowledged that when he reached out, he managed to persuade her to meet, only to exert manipulation that left him feeling guilty.
A court in the Violence Against Women division in Alicante approved the young man’s release after prosecutors did not seek imprisonment, and he gave a statement while accompanied by officers. The defense was represented by lawyer Juan Antonio Espinosa Vañó, affiliated with the office of Francisco Miguel Galiana Botella.
The sole remaining measure is the 500-meter distance rule, with telematics monitoring continuing for both the victim and her ex-partner.
High risk for the victim
A risk assessment by the National Police categorized the victim as high risk, noting indicators that markedly increase the likelihood of very serious or even fatal violence by the aggressor. This has led to the case being treated as a matter of special relevance within the VioGen system, triggering mandatory tracking for both the aggressor and the victim to ensure the highest possible protection.
The alleged events occurred in Alicante on March 21. According to a worker at the center, the juvenile under guardianship reported that the ex-girlfriend disclosed that the former partner did not comply with the curfew and the communication ban. The ex-partner reportedly contacted the juvenile from a discreet number, maintaining secrecy.
The underage child stated that the ex-girlfriend had encouraged him to meet, and he did so after leaving home. A geolocation device attached to a telematics wristband triggered the alarm exclusion zone, signaling a breach of protective measures.
Recording of the relationship
An interview took place at the property where the ex-boyfriend resided. Initially, he claimed there had been no sexual intercourse since his arrest; however, a video on his phone contradicted that assertion. He agreed to show the footage. The young man admitted meeting the younger individual and described some grooming actions, raising questions about consent and coercion. The video indicated both recording and sexual activity, suggesting evidence of pressuring behavior.
In response to the younger person’s statement, the arrested youth claimed that he had initiated contact and invited the meeting. He stated that the pair met, and he told her she did not want to testify or cause trouble for him.
Following the complaint of a violation of the restraining order, police attempted to contact the minor. The victim cried and declined to travel to a police station to testify about the events.
In a separate development, the young man faced a third arrest. He had already been charged with sexual assault in August of the previous year, sexual abuse and violation of penalties in December, and another sexual assault and violation of penalties in January.