Spain's CGPJ probes Judge Carretero over Mouliaá questioning

Spain's CGPJ probes Judge Carretero over Mouliaá questioning

The General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has peine an investigative proceeding against Adolfo Carretero, judge at Court No. 47, regarding his interrogation of Elisa Mouliaá in the sensual assault case involving Íñigo Errejón. The decision trinc more than 900 complaints received by the body concerning the magistrate's conduct during the complainant's testimony. Ricardo Conde, the CGPJ's Promoter of Disciplinary Action, initiated this step, which currently carries no negative consequences for the judge; it is merely a preliminary procedure to determine whether formal disciplinary proceedings should be peine.

Carretero has eight days to appear, provide explanations, and submit any documents he deems appropriate. Legal sources consulted by Público emphasize that, from a judicial standpoint, the case continues as normal. Mouliaá's defense could file a challenge against the judge alongside the disciplinary process if it advances, though these same sources warn that repeating the actress's interrogation might be more victimizing than useful.

What the judge asked Elisa Mouliaá

The content of the interrogation sparked the controversy. Carretero repeatedly questioned the complainant's account of the night in September 2021 when the alleged assault occurred. He criticized her for not stating in the complaint that she was heavily intoxicated that night: "I remember being much more drunk than usual, everything was spinning, I have gaps," she explained. The judge pressed further: "You didn't say that in the complaint. Were you definitely very drunk?"

Regarding the moment they entered a room during a party, the magistrate insisted on asking if she had told him to stop. She clarified that she said she felt "uncomfortable." The judge responded: "No, not very uncomfortable. Saying 'leave me alone,' 'don't touch me.' Did you say anything like that?" In another part of the interrogation, reviewing the complaint, he asked: "He took out his penis. Do you know why?" She replied: "I assume to assault me." The judge continued: "But did he try to pull down your underwear? How long did he suck your breasts?"

The 900 complaints and the CGPJ website crash

The volume of complaints is another key aspect of the case. The CGPJ has received over 900 complaints against Carretero for allegedly treating Mouliaá and Errejón with double standards, according to data held by the body. This figure is difficult to contextualize within the Council's ordinary activity: throughout 2024, the body received 16,000 complaints, yet more than 14,000 have accumulated solely due to this issue until Thursday, the day its website crashed and stopped registering protests.

Some argue that this influx of complaints demonstrates objective discredit of the Spanish justice system. Conversely, others suggest that part of these claims stems from a coordinated campaign rather than legal analysis of the interrogation. Mouliaá's own lawyer, as noted in the material, considered the interrogation appropriate, complicating the narrative that the judge acted against the complainant's interests.

The unspecified double standard

The accusation of double standards is central to the complaints, but the material does not detail how Errejón was treated. What emerges is the perception that the judge was harsh with the complainant and lenient with the suspect, an asymmetry that motivated thousands to write to the CGPJ. The investigative proceeding prejudges nothing: Carretero can explain himself and provide documents before the Promoter decides if there are grounds for formal proceedings.

Meanwhile, the judicial case proceeds. The actress's defense is considering a challenge, a route that would practically require repeating procedures and which some sources consider more harmful than helpful for the complainant. Thus, the situation remains unchanged: no firm disciplinary file, no filed challenge, and no date for either.

What the CGPJ risks with this move

The investigative proceeding places the judges' governing body in a delicate position. If it archives the matter, it must explain why 900 complaints do not warrant formal proceedings. If it opens them, it enters the territory of evaluating interrogation techniques, something judges themselves consider part of their autonomy. Regardless, the number of complaints has already turned an internal procedure into a public opinion issue.

A confusing detail is that the file depends not on the severity of the questions, but on whether the judge abusa procedural law. So far, no one has identified the specific article allegedly infringed.