The fourth division of the Valencian Court effectively extended the instruction of the Education Court 15 regarding the treatment of the Equality Chamber to the case of the minor child in the custody of the Generalitat who was sexually abused by the educator Luis E in 2017. Ramírez Icardi is Mónica Oltra’s ex-husband, then Minister of Equality and ultimately responsible for children’s centres.
Judges Pedro Castellano, Isabel Sifres and Cristina Badenes (speaker) accepted the objection to include emails sent by the team or the cabinet, submitted by the Gobierna-te association affiliated with ultra Cristina Seguí and represented by Francisco Camps’ lawyer. Minister for Equality and Inclusive Policies between October and December 2019.
During these months, the first hearing of the educator, who was sentenced to five years in prison for sexual abuse, took place (November 7, 2019), regarding his sentence, which was finalized on November 28, 2019. Supreme Court.
Although on 27 November 2019, that is, the day before the first sentence, a letter was sent from the Regional Equality Directorate to the Valencian Public Prosecutor’s Office with an entry date of 2 December 2019, to which the Espill Institute’s report was attached. He did not find his explanation of the events reliable regarding the young child who was subjected to abuse.
The premature submission of this very report caused the case against the educator to be repeated in 2021 and resulted in a conviction. Approved by TSJCV and the Supreme Court.
Related facts
According to the decision of the fourth division of the Court of Valencia, some dates that the fourth division considers should also be investigated. «The agreed procedures should cover the interim period from October to December 2019, as this is the period during which both the filing and sending of the archived information file since 2017 and the subsequent imposition of the sentence took place. Despite the reprimand of Mr. Ramírez Icardi, these events were considered by this court to be relevant to the course of events.
A final verdict without appeal would drag out the investigation, which some argue has been exhausted, because it would force the judge to open a separate secret room to investigate the new batch of emails.