State Attorney General Accuses Supreme Court Judge of Ignoring Exculpatory Evidence
The State Attorney General's Office has leveled accusations against a Supreme Court judge involved in the investigation of the Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz. The office claims that the judge has disregarded evidence that could clear the accused parties and has based some of the allegations on mere opinions lacking probative support.
Legal representatives for the Administration have submitted a reform appeal, which was accessed by Europa Press, challenging the judge's decision to summon the Attorney General, the provincial chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez, and the lieutenant prosecutor of the Technical Secretariat of the Attorney General's Office, Diego Villafañe, as accused parties.
The Attorney General's office argues that the magistrate has failed to include essential elements that demonstrate there are no reasonable suspicions to consider any of the accused as potential perpetrators of the crime of revealing secrets. They state that such claims place the Attorney General's office in a difficult position, requiring them to prove a negative--that the alleged actions did not occur without any solid evidence backing the judge's assertions.
Furthermore, the Attorney General's office contends that emails exchanged between González Amador's attorney and the prosecutor for economic crimes, Julián Salto, do not form part of the pre-trial investigative actions. They argue that it is challenging to claim that the information contained in the emails warrants the legal protection outlined in Article 417 of the Penal Code, which pertains to the declaration of secrets.
Additionally, the Attorney General's office emphasizes that the magistrate's order fails to specify the facts or circumstances that could justify the confidential nature of the email dated February 2. They reiterate that the alleged actions attributed to the accused are covered by the functions and responsibilities inherent to the Attorney General's Office.
Specifically, they highlight the obligation of prosecutors to report their actions in cases of significant importance or relevance to their superiors, as well as the duty of the Attorney General's Office to inform the public, especially to counteract the spread of false information that could harm the image of justice and the role of its members.
Moreover, the Attorney General's office points out that González Amador had authorized Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, chief of staff to Díaz Ayuso, to share this email with journalists, as confirmed by the senior official from the Community of Madrid. This occurred prior to the accused being made aware of the email's contents.
In further claims, they assert that the email from February 2 was accessible to numerous individuals, and that a copy of the Attorney General's complaint from March 5 was also sent to the Tax Agency. Both the complaint and the tax file had been available at the Madrid court since March 5, accessible to an unspecified number of people.
They also reveal that two journalists acknowledged having access to the complaint, the Tax Agency's report, and the email as early as March 6. Thus, the Attorney General's office accuses the magistrate of neglecting these and other elements that substantiate that the leak of the email's contents occurred before March 13 at 23:51.
According to the Attorney General's office, the omission of these facts jeopardizes the rights of the accused. They argue that this violation is compounded by the fact that there appears to be a parallel trial underway against the accused, characterized by illegal and biased public dissemination that undermines the integrity of the proceedings and raises concerns about the impartiality of the court.
In a separate document also accessed by news agencies, the Attorney General's office requests the judge to carry out a series of priority actions before the scheduled hearings for the accused on January 29 and 30 and February 5. Specifically, they propose summoning González Amador for questioning, asserting that while he confirmed his complaint at the High Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM), the progress of this investigation necessitates his testimony for this defense.
They also seek the testimony of five journalists as witnesses and the summoning of two agents from the Central Operational Unit (UCO) of the Civil Guard to affirm and clarify the report they produced during the search of the office of the provincial chief prosecutor of Madrid, Pilar Rodríguez.
In addition to this, they ask the instructor to require the mobile phone of Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, who has already appeared as a witness in the Supreme Court. While this request has been made multiple times orally, they restate the necessity of this action given the numerous testimonial evidences contradicting Rodríguez's repeated claims that he did not provide the email dated March 12 to journalists until 22:21 on March 13, after the news had already been published by El Mundo at 21:29.
