The Supreme Court rejects Vox's complaint against Irene Montero by not seeing a crime in her statement on sexuality and children

It ensures that the complaints and complaints made "should not and cannot be admitted, since they are manifestly inadmissible"

MADRID, 30 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has rejected a complaint filed by Vox against the Minister of Equality, Irene Montero, for not seeing a crime in the statements she made regarding sexuality and children in the Equality Commission of the Congress of Deputies on the past 21 September during the processing of the abortion law.

In an order, to which Europa Press has had access, the High Court has also agreed to reject the complaint filed by the president of the European Association of Citizens against Corruption, the complaint by the Liberum Association, the complaint by the National Association of Victims of Politicians, the complaint by Proyecto Alexia Enseñamos and the complaint by the Educators Association against Indoctrination.

The magistrates have concluded that none of the documents contain facts that can be considered a crime. The complaints and complaints filed alleged that Montero had been able to commit a crime of incitement to the crime of corruption of minors; Vox assured that there was even room for the crime of incitement to prostitution.

That day in Congress, Montero said that "all boys, girls and children (sic) have the right (...) to know their own body, to know that no adult can touch their body if they do not want to, ( ...) and that this is a form of violence; they have the right to love and have sexual relations with whoever they want, based, yes, on consent".

In 13 pages, the court has ensured "the complaints and complaints made should not and cannot be admitted, since they are manifestly inadmissible."

In the resolution, for which magistrate Andrés Palomo was the speaker, the Supreme Court recalled the context in which Montero's statement took place.

"The minister was, in that parliamentary headquarters, reporting on the general lines of her department's policy; and in this context, questioned by the reform on the interruption of pregnancy, her dissertation alludes to minors of 16 and 17 years of age; and In any case, consent was predicated as an object or matter in which minors should be educated". "No incitement is contained, for minors, of a lower age, to have sexual relations," the court stressed.

In this sense, the Supreme Court has explained that, without the need to inquire about the possible cover of inviolability of these demonstrations given the parliamentary headquarters that served as an official framework in a parliamentary debate, "there are multiple reasons that lead to understanding that the facts denounced do not integrate any crime".