The Judicial Scrutiny: Criticism of Victim's Testimony in High-Profile Case
In a recent courtroom testimony that has garnered attention and sparked controversy, Judge Adolfo Carretero's handling of actress Elisa Mouliaá's allegations against politician Iñigo Errejón has raised significant concerns regarding the treatment of victims in cases of sexual violence. The session was marked by Judge Carretero's probing questions that often seemed to undermine Mouliaá's experience of violation, which only added to the discomfort felt by those observing the proceedings.
During her one hour and twenty minute testimony, Mouliaá was made to stand while recounting a distressing encounter where she claims to have been assaulted. This is contrary to standard practice, whereby victims are usually afforded a degree of comfort to help them navigate their narratives. Instead, Mouliaá found herself under what many would term intense scrutiny as the judge interrogated her circumstances, comparing them to her occupation as an actress — a suggestion that her familiarity with public life somehow diminished the seriousness of the alleged offense.
“Why do you feel violated?” was one of the opening queries posed by Judge Carretero, a statement that many viewed as indicative of a lack of sensitivity and understanding of the trauma often faced by victims of sexual misconduct. Mouliaá shared her experiences of attending a party, drinking beer, and eventually being led to a room against her will, where she asserts Errejón exposed himself without consent. In stark contrast to the sharpness of the judge’s questioning, her responses were tinged with the distress and vulnerability expected in such a charged situation.
The judge’s insistence on specific details about Mouliaá’s reactions during the alleged incident raised eyebrows. Whether she was dancing lively or softly, or even her previous interactions with Errejón were fallaciously connected to her victimization, leaving many to wonder if the focus should rather be on the accused's actions rather than the complainant’s behavior leading to those actions.
As she recounted the night of the alleged assault, Mouliaá explained her feelings of paralysis and shock, common reactions in traumatic situations. However, Judge Carretero continued to challenge her testimony, openly questioning her credible response to the actions of Errejón. He criticized Mouliaá for her delayed reporting of the incident, arguing that public visibility as an actress should have emboldened her to speak out sooner — a narrative that diminishes the fear and emotional distress often experienced by survivors.
The uncomfortable atmosphere continued when the actress expressed the trauma she experienced. Judge Carretero repeatedly pressed her for clarifications and justifications as to why she did not resist more forcefully, virtually trying to rationalize the indefensible actions of the accused. His questioning culminated in discouraging remarks that implied the act of wearing underwear somehow lessened the seriousness of Errejón's exposure.
Despite the trauma she was relaying, Mouliaá's attempts to maintain dignity and articulate her experience were further undermined by interruptions and comments such as, “Madam, you are before a court. Leave the comments for the street.” These dynamics are alarming as they could arguably contribute to the already considerable reluctance many victims feel towards coming forward with similar allegations.
Public responses to this case have highlighted a troubling pattern in courtroom procedures, emphasizing the need for reform in the way victims are treated during such proceedings. Concerns regarding victim-blaming attitudes and insensitivity during questioning demonstrate a critical need for sensitivity training for those who serve in the judiciary, especially in cases involving sexual violence.
As this case continues to unfold, it likely serves as a reflection of broader societal attitudes towards victims of sexual misconduct, and may incite calls for more compassionate laws and protocols that prioritize victim sensitivity, consent education and judicial accountability.
Related Sources: