This candidate chosen by Vox for the Generalitat Valenciana in the upcoming May elections holds a belief that resonates with a broader social debate about violence and its impact. Carlos Flores Juberías, a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Valencia, was ultimately found by the Valencian Provincial Court in 2002 to have committed acts described as psychic violence, coercion, defamation, and harassment against his former wife, the mother of their children. The court noted that these actions caused a psychological breakdown in the victim.
The Fifth Division of the Valencian County Court confirmed the conviction in September 2002, rejecting the university’s appeal and upholding a one-year prison sentence. The case also involved a ruling that the former wife suffered domestic violence, leading to a divorce in 1999.
Surprising Vox nominee for president of Generalitat Valenciana
The court decision acknowledges the psychic violence Flores Juberías inflicted on his ex-wife. In addition to the one-year prison sentence, the court barred him from active participation in elections for one year and granted civil liability compensation of 6,000 euros. The October 5, 2002 edition of Levante, a newspaper owned by Prensa Ibérica, carried the report about the judgment under the headline: Court sentences a university professor to one year in prison for domestic violence.
He told his ex-wife before their children, I’m going to hurt you for life and I am done with you.
On the 22nd, Vox’s leadership in Spain announced Flores Juberías as the party’s candidate for the Generalitat Valenciana. He was repeatedly mentioned alongside Santiago Abascal, a prominent lawyer within Conservative circles for the 2023 election. The record notes that he was previously supported by the PP in 2015 to hold a position at Consell de Transparencia, a role he continued in due to non-renewal of the body. The candidate was contacted by the newspaper but declined to testify, leaving any action to the party’s legal services.
The Kidnapper
Regarding the sentence, the courts found it proven that Flores Juberías subjected his ex-wife to threats and harassment on multiple occasions after their separation. These actions took place at home, near the children’s school, and in public spaces, including insulting language and sustained harassment. The documents show instances where he appeared near the ex-wife’s residence on numerous occasions within a short span, shouting insults such as thief, kidnapper, and other demeaning terms from beneath her balcony.
The law professor claimed the victim harbored hostility due to a new relationship.
According to the facts laid out in the judgment, Flores confronted his ex-wife at the entrance of the training center with threats and degrading remarks. The woman had to leave the location with a companion shortly after the defendant’s sustained presence. The record notes that, at one point, the eldest daughter required assistance from police due to her father’s insults. Insults toward the children’s grandparents and the ex-father-in-law were also recorded.
The forensic psychiatry report prepared before the first hearing described the victim as experiencing a psychological breakdown, marked by fear of her ex-husband, reduced self-esteem, anxiety, and insomnia. The family even relocated to Barcelona for a period of time for safety and stability.
After the first sentence, the defendant appealed under the claim that the minors had not been questioned and that the victim provoked him by displaying hostility toward his new relationship. The provincial court, however, found sufficient evidence and witnesses to sustain the original judgment, upholding the concerns about interrogating the minors and the underlying family protections.
She asked not to be prosecuted for domestic violence
Flores Juberías was convicted under Article 153 of the Penal Code, which punishes physical or psychological violence within a marriage. The Gender-Based Violence Act would come two years later, in 2004, and the resolution at that time referred to domestic violence within the family context. The professor argued that the facts did not fit the crime of domestic violence since there was no physical injury. The court responded that the protected legal right is the dignity and personal protection within the family, ensuring that every member is not subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.