The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Community of Valencia (TSJCV) not to repeat the case against Luis Eduardo Ramírez Icardi, an educator of a children’s center who was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor under the tutelage of the Generalitat. Between late 2016 and early 2017. The now-convicted educator was Mónica Oltra’s ex-husband, although they continued to live together in the same house. At the time of the events, Oltra was vice-chairman of the Consell and Minister for Equality.
The educator, who was sentenced to five years in prison for sexual abuse of a minor, asked for the case to be repeated in 2019 and in 2021, when it was partially repeated, by a court other than the second division of the Valencia Court, which convicted him. Hearing to include in the case two Equity reports that diminished the credibility of the minor’s testimony. Luis Ramírez’s defense requested, among other demands, that this partial replay be annulled to secure the right to defense.
Reject all arguments
However, the Supreme Court rejected all their arguments and confirmed the sentence handed down at the time by TSJCV judges Carlos Climent, Antonio Ferrer and Carmen Llombart; they also confirmed the sentence handed down by the judges of the second division of the Court of València. Court Dolores Hernández Rueda, Sandra Schuller Ramos and José María Gómez Villora (speaker).
The court acknowledges that “partial annulment of the trial was a sensitive decision.” This issue is not specifically foreseen, but it is not excluded by existing procedural law. And he points out that in this case, TSJ “opted for partial annulment, preserving the validity of the tests already performed in order to avoid secondary victimization of the minor witness.” “A young woman who lacked the emotional support of a structured family life and had a history of discontents that led to her being institutionalized in different centers.”
Supreme Court justices consider it “neither appropriate nor useful” for the minor to testify again, as the now-convicted man intended. And regarding the testimony of the minor, who is thought to be plagued with contradictions and inaccuracies that weaken its evidentiary value due to “lack of specificity in dates (…) or inaccuracies”, the judges point out this “impossibility of statement”. Stating spatially and temporally distinct sexual assaults does not diminish the incriminating power of the statement.
Because, “It is logical and understandable that minors, due to their age, do not retain in memory the exact location and date of each of the attacks, due to the pain that the memory of such crimes can cause.” or out of fear.” to disturb the family peace.