News continues to unfold around the file in the judicial case involving Mónica Oltra, the former vice president of the Generalitat. The political quake is such that virtually every public representative from all parties could be questioned on the matter. The most recent comments come from Vicente Barrera, whose office is located at the Palau de Valeriola, the place where Oltra once ran her department during the seven years she served as second in command of the regional government.
From Barrera’s perspective, the first vice president of the Consell and the minister overseeing Culture and Sport described the dismissal of the case against Oltra as neither favorable nor unfavorable. He framed the resolution as a judicial decision that must be respected, adding simply that the appropriate response is to comply with it.
No less prominent within the regional executive is the Vox party’s representative, who commented that the documented facts and the trial’s outcome against Oltra’s former husband indicate that not everything was handled correctly. He urged accountability to be judged by one’s own conscience and conduct, leaving the rest to the observers and the public to decide what happened next.
Unlike Carlos Mazón, the president of the Generalitat who had criticized Oltra for not offering an apology to the minor who was abused, Barrera declined to say whether Oltra should apologize. He stated clearly that he would not tell Oltra what she must or must not do about seeking forgiveness from anyone.
Carles Esteve, a Compromís deputy, criticized Mazón’s remarks as indignant and suggested it would be beneficial for all Valencians if Mazón rectified his stance and aligned himself with the justice system. Esteve emphasized that the auto indicates the victim was never without protection and argued that personal attacks against someone who has driven change cannot be justified, especially when the ruling confirms that actions were carried out in accordance with the law and established protocols.
As the political dialogue continues, observers note the tension between political accountability and legal outcomes, with the central question remaining how public figures frame justice, memory, and responsibility in cases that touch on violence and institutional reform. The broader implication is a debate about the balance between political speech, public accountability, and respect for judicial determinations in a diverse and highly attentive electorate.