The infamous judgment of the attorney general | Opinion
The process al State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, Capota in infamy. The main trick of the instructor judge has just evaporate, Ángel Hurtado, who properly helped the criminals of the Gürtel case. And to his (assumptions) commanders.
The Civil Guard He has not found any relevance on García Ortiz devices seized by Hurtado through « search » of his office, as described by the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office.
And it is not that the UCO of the Benemérita did not find the emails of the persecuted in the days before the outbreak of the outbreak Case of fiscal crime of Alberto González Amador, Isabel Díaz Ayuso boyfriend. No. He has recovered 159. And it is not that the material related to the case had disappeared: there was abundant information, but already known in cars.
So the judge’s car (February 25) in which it imputes García Ortiz for « making evidence disappear » and underlines the « evidence » that « the investigated has disappears tests » is grotesque. After the police, that evidence It lacks support, it is revealed as mere inference, that sign of partiality.
It is even more hurtful, because it violates the presumption of innocence, the affirmation of the togado that the accused has destroyed « evidence »: no « indications », not « material susceptible to … », not « allegedly instilling elements. » No: « Tests. »
The judge dies by the mouth. Hurtado considered in advance as something non -existent. Gulpiability presumption: he condemned the defendant without reading them. That path was marked by Isabel Díaz Ayuso on December 20 (Pedro Sánchez « applauded the Attorney General to delete evidence, » he said) and the parliamentary motion of the PP, in January, trying to « reprob » the Attorney General.
If the Supreme does not correct that instructor again, as the Appeal Chamber has already done forcing him to quote the corrupt boyfriend, If it validates its “clearly inquisitive” process, which the UPF prosecutors denounce, it will collide with the liberal wall of the European Court of Human Rights. I invite you to read your sentence Lavents against Latvia (11/22/2002), who vapulates the member of a court to formulate « expressions that can imply a negative appreciation » of « one of the parties », for « incompatible with the impartiality demands of every court. »
Also with the jurisprudence of Strasbourg the continuous negative of the instructor to which several journalists appear. Those who demonstrated in their media that They had the nuclear information of the Amador case before he arrived at the Attorney General. This could not reveal any secret; It was already public. Do not rust the sentences Perna against Italy (7/25/2001), Vaturi against France (4/13/2006), Saidi against France (9/9/1993) and Ps against Germany (12/20/2001). They detail the right of the accused to « interrogate or question the witnesses » of relevant position. For your good. Free advice.
