The Provincial Court of Madrid has initiated a process against the organizer of a party during the pandemic during which the attendees were held against their will until the celebration ended.
The Prosecutor’s Office requests in its provisional conclusions 15 years in prison for the defendant as the alleged perpetrator of three alleged crimes of illegal detention in events that occurred at the same in a warehouse of the Ceramics Estate in the Madrid district of Puente de Vallecas
In his indictment, the prosecutor maintains that on the night of March 6 to 7, 2021, the defendant, R.G.V., organized a party in a room located in said warehouse that was fenced around it, in breach of sanitary measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus covid-19, which was attended by one hundred people.
He recounts that the room opened its doors around nine at night, and around three in the morning, given the evidence that a party was being held with the assistance of numerous people, national police officers went to the place and set up a device in the surroundings of the premises and observed that no one came out of it.
He adds that after six in the morning the agents saw some 50 people leave the premises but were unable to leave the premises since the outer fence was locked.
The prosecutor explains that these people told the agents that they were not allowed to leave until six in the morning and that their mobile phones had been taken away to prevent them from communicating with the outside world.
Since the defendant refused to open the door at about twenty minutes to seven in the morning, the firefighters were notified to open it and release the people who were in the premises.
For the Prosecutor’s Office, the conditions imposed by R.G.V. on those attending the party were contrary to the freedom of the people, but almost all of them generally accepted them verbally and of which they were informed at the time of accessing the private venue after paying 40 euros per ticket, but, nevertheless, it does appreciate that illegal detention was committed in three cases.
This indicates that E.M.L. He tried to leave the premises at one in the morning, at which time the defendant prevented him from leaving the ship, being informed that the premises were closed until six in the morning, for which he was forced to remain locked up until midnight. arrival of the fire brigade.
Something similar happened to J.L.H.R. when he tried to leave the premises around three in the morning and the defendant also informed him that the warehouse was closed until six in the morning, despite which he managed to leave at an unspecified hour but remained locked in the premises until the intervention of the fire brigade.
For his part, G.M.A. He arrived at the ship at eleven at night and once inside the defendant also warned him that he could not leave until six in the morning and that he had to hand over his cell phone.
But when at 6:00 a.m. G.M.A. tried to leave the ship, was prevented by the defendant due to the presence of the Police and could not leave the premises until he was released along with the rest of the attendees by the firefighters, always according to the Prosecutor’s Office.
