There are "a series of plural indications that as a whole make us suspect the possible existence of a concert between Ms. Mónica Oltra and various officials in her charge, with the purpose of either protecting her then-partner or protecting the political career of the affluent ».
It is one of the devastating phrases used by the Civil and Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community to justify the imputation of the vice president of the Generalitat in the case that investigates the management made by the Ministry of Equality and Policies Including the sexual abuse of her then husband to a 14-year-old minor under guardianship, between 2016 and 2017.
But it is not the only one.
The fact that both the Ministry and the juvenile center where the events occurred were aware of the relationship between Oltra and the condemned educator, "also leads us to suspect that, contrary to what was stated, he was aware of these events from the beginning, either by communication of one of her subordinates, either for simply telling her husband, with whom we must not forget at that time she lived ». That is to say, they suspect that the leader of Compromís knew about the abuses -reported by the victim in February 2017, but they were not reported until June- before a judicial notification arrived at her house on August 4 of that year, as she He has defended all this time.
[Who is the ex-husband of Mónica Oltra and why he was convicted]
The reasoned statement raised by the Court of Instruction number 15 of Valencia -which charged thirteen charges and officials of the regional department- to the TSJ has specified, the order indicates, the "suspicion", according to the magistrates, in which the high court has already put the focus pending a more detailed instruction -the one that has been carried out- and that they have acquired "a virtuality of their own unrelated to the sentence" of the Valencia Court that sentenced the educator to five years in prison.
Whether Luis Ramírez Icardi's appeal is accepted or not in the Supreme Court, the letter indicates, "what is important is the screen arranged in order to avoid contributing to the proper investigation of the facts and protect the minor as was his duty, avoiding the secondary victimization caused by the treatment given to his complaint. Without forgetting the consequences that the different adopted resolutions could have in criminal order, which in their case could be understood as constituting the crime of prevarication of article 404 imputed by the Public Prosecutor, or simply a crime of improper embezzlement of article 432 in relation to article 252, to the extent that they may have involved an improper use of public resources for private purposes.
