VALENCIA, Apr. 29 (EUROPA PRESS) -
The head of the Investigating Court number 15 of Valencia that is investigating the alleged cover-up of sexual abuse committed by Mónica Oltra's ex-husband against a minor under guardianship and the parallel investigation opened in the department headed by the former vice president of the Generalitat has decided to extend for six months plus the instruction, to be counted from next April 30.
This is agreed in an order, to which Europa Press has had access and against which there is an appeal, in which it responds to the request of the private prosecution -the victim of the abuses-, as well as the Prosecutor's Office and the popular accusation, exercised by Gobierna-TE and Vox, requests before which it had presented allegations against Oltra itself.
The former vice president alleged that none of the requirements set out in article 324 of the Criminal Procedure Law are met, since the existence of an investigation proceeding pending practice and their relevance are not specified, all without prejudice to the practice of those already agreed, which do not require resolution.
In addition, it indicated that the "long" and "excessive" duration of the investigation, as well as the secret nature of various proceedings constitute, "at least", procedural anomalies "that must be maintained with restrictive criteria." Otherwise, he added, "there is a risk of delving into a dynamic of a general cause and of a prospective nature that violates fundamental rights."
However, the magistrate considers that in this case "it is not possible to complete the investigation within the term" established in the Criminal Procedure Law, and stresses that "various witness statement proceedings" remain pending.
In addition, the judge recalls the existence of two secret pieces, "whose extension is agreed monthly", and has pointed out that two of the people investigated "have been interested in giving a statement when the partial secrecy of the proceedings is lifted".
In any case, the magistrate says he shares an interest in "the earliest completion of the investigation phase of the case", but stresses that the pending proceedings and those that may derive from them for "the proper exercise of constitutional rights "demands" the extension of the investigation.
Finally, it argues that the "delay" of the process is due to "the complexity" of the proceedings and that they "must be substantiated in separate and secret pieces." However, he maintains that this whole situation "in no way implies that a kind of general inquisition is being carried out" and defends that all the proceedings "are limited to the object of the investigation and are aimed at clarifying the facts investigated."