A heated debate is unfolding in Madrid over an alleged sexual assault case, where Íñigo Errejón is a central figure. The issue of who may remain as a plaintiff has taken on special significance for Spain’s judicial system. The outcome of this case could influence how similar allegations are handled in the future and alter the approach to withdrawing charges.
Defense arguments
Íñigo Errejón’s lawyer filed a motion with the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid, demanding that actress Elisa Mouliaá be excluded from the proceedings. According to the defense, her withdrawal from the case, announced in February, should be considered final and irreversible. The attorney emphasized that the actress signed an official document not only renouncing her accusation, but also requesting the case be closed. The defense argues that this step was deliberate, voluntary, and did not require additional confirmation from Mouliaá’s legal counsel.
Judge Adolfo Carretero previously refused to close the case, citing that after her initial withdrawal, Mouliaá reversed her decision and confirmed her willingness to participate as a plaintiff. Now the defense has appealed this ruling, maintaining that the law requires the immediate termination of proceedings once the victim has formally withdrawn their accusation, regardless of any subsequent changes in stance.
The prosecutor’s role and new developments
The situation is complicated by the position of the prosecutor’s office, which had previously requested Errejón’s acquittal. Despite this, Muliáá decided to continue participating in the proceedings, a decision the defense argues is illogical and contrary to the law. Case materials note that the actress was warned in advance about the consequences of her action and that her decision was neither impulsive nor mistaken.
In February, the court had already considered whether to close the case, but at that time the judge decided the actress could remain a plaintiff. Now, the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid must address two issues: the legality of Muliáá’s participation and the validity of the charges against the former MP.
Second accusation and court response
Recently, a new development emerged in the case: another woman, whose identity remains undisclosed, filed a similar complaint against Errejón. However, the judge quickly dismissed this accusation, as the plaintiff did not confirm her claims in court. This episode highlights the importance of consistency and determination from victims in such cases.
According to El Pais, Errejón’s defense insists that Muliáá’s withdrawal was processed correctly and cannot be reversed. The motion emphasizes that the actress acted knowingly and independently, and that her decision was not the result of coercion or error. The defense contends that Muliáá’s continued involvement in the case lacks legal basis.
Context and consequences
In Spain, the issue of whether dropping charges is permissible and the impact this has on criminal proceedings has been debated before. Recently in Valencia, a court decided to proceed with the case against Monica Oltra despite the prosecution’s stance, sparking widespread debate and discussion among legal experts. You can read more about how such decisions are influencing legal practice in the article on the Monica Oltra case and the court’s position in Valencia.
In recent years, Spain has seen more cases where victims have withdrawn their accusations after legal proceedings had already begun. These situations spark disputes between lawyers, judges, and prosecutors, since the law does not always clearly address the consequences of such actions. In some cases, courts dismiss the matter; in others, they continue if they believe the withdrawal was not final or was made under pressure. This trend highlights the need for clear rules and transparency in criminal proceedings to avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness for all parties.
