The Standing Committee has agreed this Tuesday to order the Promoter of Disciplinary Action to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the magistrate of the Appeals Chamber of the National Court, Eloy Velasco, for a serious offense of disregard in relation to the statements made by him on November 13, 2024, in a debate forum in which he alluded to the MEP of Podemos and former Minister of Equality, Irene Montero.
Specifically, Velasco said that "suddenly they thought they were teaching us about the world. They tried to explain to us what consent is, to a jurist who has known what consent is since Roman law. And express consent and tacit consent and the consequent acts. And a thousand other things that Irene Montero will never learn from her checkout counter at Mercadona, nor will she be able to lecture the rest of us."
The Prosecutor had decided to close the preliminary investigation initiated as a result of the complaints received regarding the magistrate's statements.
In his resolution to close the case, the Prosecutor considered that these statements "lack disciplinary relevance because they were made in a forum for debate, and, therefore, outside of judicial proceedings; and because they addressed a current issue - consent - about which, from certain sectors, there had been controversy surrounding the interpretations that the judicial collective makes of this legal concept in the performance of its jurisdictional function."
Furthermore, it pointed out that the demonstrations do not fit the conduct typified in art. 417.2 LOPJ, since it does not appear that the magistrate made an express invocation of his status to formulate his criticism, and even less that, to that effect, he made use of it.
The Standing Committee does not share the Promoter's arguments, and has therefore agreed to order the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the magistrate. The decision was adopted by a majority, with the casting vote of the President of the Supreme Court and of the General Council of the Judiciary, Isabel Perelló; and the members Pilar Jiménez Bados, José Eduardo Martínez Mediavilla, Isabel Revuelta, and Alejandro Abascal have announced the formulation of a dissenting opinion.
Dissemination of fragments of a judicial declaration
The Standing Committee took note of the filing of the preliminary investigation that had been initiated on January 22 by the Promoter of Disciplinary Action.
This proceeding was initiated as a result of complaints received after the dissemination in media and social networks of fragments of the recording of the statement that the head of the Court of Instruction number 47 of Madrid, Adolfo Carretero, took from the complainant in the proceedings against former deputy Íñigo Errejón for a crime against sexual freedom.
The Promoter of Disciplinary Action decided to close the case, considering that the partial view of the recording offered a distorted reality. After viewing the full statement, it was concluded that the magistrate directed the statement without committing a disciplinary infraction, despite using uncomfortable language or asking rigorous questions.
The resolution indicates that the judge sought to verify the plausibility of the testimony and the absence of subjective incredibility, using vocabulary extracted from the complaint itself.
Furthermore, it is highlighted that the complainant was warned about the potential discomfort of the questions and was assisted by her lawyer and a prosecutor, who did not file complaints about the instructor's actions.
Disciplinary Investigation Against Judge Ángel Luis Hurtado Archived
This investigation began in April due to complaints filed by individuals alleging that the magistrate had failed in his duties by disseminating irrelevant personal data and prolonging the case in bad faith.
The Promoter of Disciplinary Action concluded that the accusations did not constitute facts of a disciplinary nature, but rather aspects inherent to the judicial investigation. Thus, it was determined that the assessment of such actions corresponds to the judicial bodies predetermined by law.
Finally, it is noted that any disagreement or criticism of judicial decisions should be channeled through procedural remedies.