The Prosecutor’s Office resorts against the Attorney General and warns that the instruction has not had “procedural or constitutional guarantees” | Spain
The Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court has submitted an appeal in which, shielded by the publications of the press, the statements of the witnesses and a report of the UCO, asks for the file of the case against The State Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortizand the provincial chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez. The document, signed this Friday, indicates that, before García Ortiz had access to the emails where the couple of Madrid president Isabel Díaz Ayuso admitted two fiscal crimes and proposed to the Prosecutor’s mails. Therefore, if García Ortiz had the mails in his possession after other people knew him, including several journalists, he cannot be investigated for a crime of revelation of secrets, if the jurisprudence sitting by the high court is taken into account in the sentence 866/2008: “When a secret is revealed, and even more be ”. Similarly, the prosecution of the Supreme Load against the investigating judge, Ángel Hurtado, to conclude in his car “Without any probative substrate” that Presidency ordered the general prosecutor to filter the information of the couple of Díaz Ayuso to the media.
The brief attached a conversation of the WhatsApp group of journalists from courts of the media communication The sixth that shows that the television channel had in its possession the information about the couple of Díaz Ayuso at 9:54 p.m. on March 13, 2024, five minutes before the mails Alberto González Amador arrived at the hands of the Attorney General. “This dissemination is omitted by the instructor in the car of June 9, 2025, which is now resorted, indicating as the first filtration the one published by the chain Be At 11:24 p.m., 11:51 p.m. ”, as stated in the resource.
Hurtado has so far cling that García Ortiz leaked the emails to the journalist of the SER Miguel Ángel Campos chain, despite the fact that in the reporter’s statement as a witness in the case he denied it sharply. The instructor has also overlooked the statements of the four journalists from El País that, 31 hours before García Ortiz knew him, They had news that Alberto González Amador negotiated with the Prosecutor’s Office an agreement in which he recognized his fiscal crimes. Hurtado’s arguments not to consider these testimonies are that they do not provide enough evidence.
The Prosecutor’s Office argued in its appeal that the emails had also been referred to the State Advocacy that day, As González’s lawyer admitted to Hurtado Amador, and the Superior Prosecutor of the Community of Madrid, Almudena Lastrara de Inés. What, according to the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office, rejects the argument that the filtration to journalists could only have arrived by two channels: the attorney general and the lawyer of the couple of Díaz Ayuso.
Along these lines, the resource points to the UCO report, which confirms that « the content of said email was well known before it was disclosed by the SER chain, by other people and that the investigation for them carried out had not allowed to obtain any evidence on which the filtration had left of the State Attorney General. »
Similarly, the document indicates that García Ortiz and María Pilar Rodríguez, jointly agreed to filter said information to the media. As for the press release that the Prosecutor’s Office published the day after the emails were known – which the Supreme Court ruled out investigating, but to which it refers extensively in the car on Monday – affirms that the matter was of “unquestionable relevance”, since it tried to deny “demonstrated information as false that attributed to the institution an abnormal action for political reasons” of the Prosecutor’s Office.
The appeal also warns that the accusation sustained by Hurtado that García Ortiz and Pilar Rodríguez followed “indications received from the presidency of the Government” does not appear “in any of the multiple resolutions and procedural acts existing in the cause”, “that no evidence has been proposed to accredit or distort such an extreme”, nor has they asked “those investigated have not been informed ex novo in the order that is used. « The text attacks Hurtado pointing out that » the facts subject to imputation vary from one day to another in the instructor’s resolutions « and concludes that » the instruction of the cause has not accommodated the procedural or constitutional guarantees that must be presided over. »
The case against the Attorney General dates back to just over a year, when eldiario.es He published on March 12 a first report in which he revealed that Alberto González Amador, boyfriend of Díaz Ayuso, had disappointed 350,951 euros. The publication unleashed a media storm since early in the morning, and in the afternoon the information that González Amador had confessed the crimes in exchange for a reduction of the conviction reached some writings. The world He spread at 21.29 an article that argued that the Prosecutor’s Office offered an agreement to González Amador, ”he resulted in the opposite – in exchange for the admission of two crimes to reduce the penalty of jail.
Between 21.43 and 21.59 the Attorney General claimed his subordinates and got the lawyer’s emails to the prosecutor. From 22.10, the media began to deny the information of The world and the Bulos of the Government of Díaz Ayuso. But his chief of cabinet, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, disseminates another: that “the prosecutor himself says he has received orders above so that there is no agreement and, then, they go to trial. ”This is what leads the prosecution to publish a press release to deny it, which days later leads to the case against the Attorney General and the Provincial Chief Prosecutor of Madrid.
