The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction of a fine of 1,080 euros for the offense of disobedience pronounced against Alejandro Colomar, a young Valencian naturist who usually walks naked in the street and who refused to get dressed afterwards his appearance. naked in a Valencia police station to file a complaint.
This is the young computer scientist who defends his right to move around naked in public spaces. Colomar’s defense obtained the cancellation of several fines imposed on the young man in 2020 under the Citizen Security Law (popularly known as the “gag law”), considering that he had been sanctioned in places that did not have specific municipal regulations.
On the other hand, Alejandro Colomar stood naked in September 2022 at the entrance to the City of Justice of Valencia, in a scene that was much talked about in judicial circles, with the intention of attending a hearing before the Administrative Dispute Tribunal number 2 of. the Valencian capital. On this occasion, those responsible for the security of the premises forced him to dress to enter the court, without however imposing any sanction on him.
The judgment of the Superior Court analyzes the events that occurred on August 20, 2020, at 9 a.m., when the naturist presented himself at the police station of the maritime district of Valencia, completely naked, despite wearing clothes to put in a backpack , to file a complaint against a person. who allegedly threatened him.
On several occasions, the ruling explains, the officers told him to get dressed because he was in a public place with more citizens and was disrupting the normal operation of the office. Despite multiple warnings about the legal consequences of his behavior, he “clearly and categorically refused” to dress, claiming he had the right to be naked, for which he was arrested.
The High Court considers that the order issued by the officers was legitimate and affirms that the actions of the uniformed officers “were necessary to maintain public order and peaceful coexistence, and that they were always consistent with the principles and fundamental criteria for action. , as fundamental axes around which the development of police functions revolves”, and with the provisions of the organic law of security forces and bodies, which in its article 11 establishes as one of its functions “to maintain and restore, in his case, the order and security of citizens.
The judgment indicates that, in this case, whether or not nudism is prohibited in the city of Valencia, the police intervened when they were alerted by the security guards that the accused had been in the waiting room for 15 minutes of complaints. naked and wearing boots.
The judgment recalls that, as stated in the lower court judgment, a national police officer stated that there were colleagues at the police station who did not want to see him and that he and two other people had left the premises , so the office was paralyzed. .
“Thus, the presence of the applicant, naked, in the waiting room of the Police Station, had already provoked reactions from those present and certain female officers, who disturbed order in the office. Along the same lines, as described in the proven fact, the officers repeatedly asked him to dress, given that he was in a public place with more citizens and that he was disrupting the operation normal of the office,” underlines the court.
Fine of 1,080 euros
The judgment adds that, as the criminal judge rightly points out, “we must not forget that the said offices are not only a place of constant flow of citizens of all ideologies, beliefs, ages and practices which require the action of law enforcement, but also the place in which members of the state security forces and bodies carry out their professional work (with the respect and dignity that every worker deserves) with which the imposition by the accused of his naked body protrudes (…) that it can be understood as an exercise of his “philosophy of life”, quite respectable on the other hand.
The Criminal Chamber rejects the appeal filed by the convicted person against the sentence of the Provincial Court of Valencia which confirmed the sentence of six months fine with a daily allowance of 6 euros (1,080 euros) that a criminal court had imposed on him. in the same city for the crime of disobedience. In his appeal, he argued that his fundamental right to ideological freedom and expression had been violated.
