The law is based on the word of eight journalists to challenge the cause of the Attorney General | Spain

The State Advocacy has challenged before the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Judge Instructor Ángel Hurtado who keeps the attorney general accusedÁlvaro García Ortiz, and the provincial prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez. Both are prosecuted for an alleged crime of revelation of secrets related to the cause open to the commissioner Alberto González Amador, a partner of Isabel Díaz Ayuso, president of the Community of Madrid, by fiscal fraud and documentary falsehood. The appeal argues that « There is no direct evidence of revelation of the mail of February 2 (where the Ayuso couple admitted two crimes and proposed an agreement to the Prosecutor’s Office to avoid jail) despite two unusual entries and records (in the offices of the Attorney General and the Provincial Prosecutor). ” Excuse the two prosecutors.

Hurtado signed a car on February 26 where the testimonies of journalists subtracted credibility who declared to have known the secret – the confession of González Amador’s guilt – before the two accused received the information. These testimonies could leave the case open against the State Attorney General and the Provincial Prosecutor. The appeal filed before the Appeals Chamber in Defense of the Provincial Prosecutor claims the statements of five journalists from four different media (eldiario.es, chain being, The world and the sixth) and defends that the statement is taken – something that Judge Hurtado has rejected – to Three El País journalists who accredited with the publication of their WhatsApp messages who knew the supposed secret 31 hours before the attorney general received the documentation. The jurisprudence of the supreme It indicates for these cases that the information ceases to be secret or reserved and, therefore, susceptible to revelation in accordance with article 417 of the Criminal Code, from the moment in which such information is known by information professionals.

The judicial error with the information of the SER chain. The appeal tries to disassemble the doubts of the investigating judge about journalists. “In the case of Mr. Campos, he revealed the information in the SER chain, fundamental mile 21:38, as he declared, without obtaining a response, which is consistent with the trafficking of calls warned by the Civil Guard – nothing could confirm because at that time the attorney general had not received the information, in case of having attended him, who did not do so either, something that does not seem logical with an end of revelation – ”, explains the law. « We ask ourselves what is meaning in the incriminating thesis that calls, and how it can be understood that whoever says that information calls who is said to filter it before he has it. Data totally omitted in Judge Hurtado’s car under the generic ‘does not convince, » he argues.

The country knew the secret 31 hours before. The appeal reports that on March 20, 2025, various journalists from El País revealed through the article entitled The evidence of a secret « Extended at least 31 hours before the attorney general claimed it » that on the morning of March 12, 2024 sources from the Provincial Prosecutor of Madrid and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (SIC) they were informed of the existence of an agreement of conformity between González Amador and the Fiscal Ministry. « The aforementioned article affirms, contributing to the effect objective elements that accredit it, which in the afternoon of March 12, 2024 three journalists from El País were aware that Mr. González Amador recognized the criminal acts attributed to him in order to reach an agreement of conformity, » details the State Advocacy. « The thesis of Judge Hurtado does not consider three journalists credible and decides not to value the credibility and publications of two other media that said they had the reference email – and they reported on their content. » The censorship law that the “time inference” of the judge, according to which it was the Attorney General who leaked the mail of February 2 because none of the journalists who have testified were published before the time (21.59 of March 13, 2024) in which García Ortiz had it, has greater evidence than the testimony of five media journalists.

The world He reported before about the secret « without respecting the reality of what happened. » The appeal highlights the information advanced by the world about a possible agreement between the Fiscal Ministry and González Amador at 9:29 p.m. on March 13. « While this news did not respect the reality of what happened, as it was later confirmed, it did reveal that González Amador had recognized before the Tax Agency various fiscal irregularities, » he says. The source of The world It was González Amador himself, as Judge Hurtado suggests, and the testimony before the Supreme of the editor who signed the news involved being aware of the negotiations, according to law. The world He published that the Prosecutor’s Office offered an agreement to Ayuso’s boyfriend in exchange for admitting two fiscal crimes when it was just the opposite.

« Ayuso’s boyfriend resigned from confidentiality. » Advocacy understands that “Ayuso’s couple deliberately stood in a situation of public knowledge and of express renunciation to the reservation or non -dissemination of certain data, since he sent the mail dated March 12 to a high position of the Community of Madrid (Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, head of the cabinet of the Madrid president) that later that he disseminated through instant messaging to a plurality of journalists, but also given that he revealed in itself or by third parties that there was a negotiation that there was a negotiation. news of El Mundo and in a Tweet of Rodríguez. ”In addition, the appeal recalls that González Amador’s lawyer sent on February 2 his proposal in accordance with the confession of guilt not only to the Prosecutor’s Office but also to a state lawyer. This fact“ delves into the null confidential value or reserved nature granted to the content of the mail of February 2 even by the lawyer of González Amador, because on that date the law of the state could not be part of any. No member of the same could be formally responsible for any file, since he was not invited to appeal but after all the controversial facts. ”The State Advocacy commissioned an expert report to prove before the Supreme Court that that mail on February 2 was never forwarded by the state lawyer who received it and, therefore, cannot be suspected of its filtration.

Judge Hurtado said that « the negotiations between prosecutor and defense lawyer are sensitive material and, in response to its content, it must go through confidentiality criteria that, if they break, can entail a significant decrease for the right of defense. » The law replicates that the news advanced by The worldfiltered by González Amador through Rodríguez, according to the judge, « contained elements related to the existence of a negotiation of conformity, including the penalties to be agreed. » “That sensitive nucleus that seems to be appreciated when filtering the mail of February 2 is the existence of a negotiation of conformity. Every negotiation of conformity implies the assumption by the investigation of its criminal responsibility, that is, the commission of the crime for which it is investigated. There is no negotiation of conformity without that premise. Concrete of the controversial emails ”.